Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2010/08/25 22:38:11
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
This thread needs dropping. Not only for the constant personal bs which has gone on from the start but also because Shuma's ego is far too big already without you inflating it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/25 22:38:55
And you're both odiously smug mouthpieces with massively overinflated opinions of yourselves. You just have different (but equally tiresome) approaches.
Better then the man with a worldview akin to that of a coma patient who just woke up after getting hit by a lorry in Thatchers england.
I agree.
Saywhat?
Again, I agree. However that's not the same as saying that I don't think that there are people who work for the BBC who should lose their jobs, only that the agenda for the BBC shouldn't be set by James Murdoch or his father. Not that that's happening, or is ever going to happen.
Murdochs got an awful lot of money, and you have an awful spineless leader. I wouldn't put it beyond possibility.
...Because of your anti-British prejudice. Do you actually KNOW anything about him?
You used prejudice wrong, and about as much as any odiously smug mouthpiece with massively overinflated opinons of themselves. That being everything about him including banal information like the exact number of hairs on his head at any given time. It's fething magic is what is it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:This thread needs dropping. Not only for the constant personal bs which has gone on from the start but also because Shuma's ego is far too big already without you inflating it.
At least I'm innovative!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/25 22:39:15
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
2010/08/25 22:40:54
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
whatwhat wrote:This thread needs dropping. Not only for the constant personal bs which has gone on from the start but also because Shuma's ego is far too big already without you inflating it.
Im not seeing Cameron as spineless at all myself like. He seems to tell it straight to people, he came right out and said it like it is about Pakistan, can you give an example?
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2010/08/25 22:50:05
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
mattyrm wrote:Im not seeing Cameron as spineless at all myself like. He seems to tell it straight to people, he came right out and said it like it is about Pakistan, can you give an example?
He hasn't had enough time to wrap himself around something in the way only an invertebrate can, most of my opinions are derived from his campaign and persona affectations. Calling pakistan names is quite easy when there are no ramifications for such statements (not that I disagree with them) however his re-characterization of the mission in afghanistan as well as his love of PR beauty rubs me in a similar way that Edwards rubbed me back when Kerry was trying to dethrone Bush. He reminds me of the Smiler if anyone here has read transmetropolitan (A great work by an englishman!).
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
2010/08/25 23:01:20
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
Albatross wrote:And you're both odiously smug mouthpieces with massively overinflated opinions of yourselves. You just have different (but equally tiresome) approaches.
Better then the man with a worldview akin to that of a coma patient who just woke up after getting hit by a lorry in Thatchers england.
Explain my worldview to me. I presume you have an intimate knowledge of it.
Murdochs got an awful lot of money, and you have an awful spineless leader.
Explain to me how David Cameron is a spineless leader. And don't just say 'I don't have time to educate you etc.' - that, as far as I'm concerned, IS actually an innovation: An intellectually 'macho' cop-out. I can't remember seeing that before, but maybe it's the circles I move in.
...Because of your anti-British prejudice. Do you actually KNOW anything about him?
You used prejudice wrong,
How? You have displayed, time and again, anti-British sentiment - this will naturally inform any prejudgements you make on related topics, especially ones which you know little about.
and about as much as any odiously smug mouthpiece with massively overinflated opinons of themselves. That being everything about him including banal information like the exact number of hairs on his head at any given time. It's fething magic is what is it.
Ah. The 'humourous deflection'. So now you're taking tips on arguing from Frazzled? Why didn't you just post a picture of a dachshund?
Or better yet, just admit that you know nothing about the guy aprt from the fact that he's the British PM, and that that's enough for you to base your snideness on. Seriously, I wouldn't mind.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/25 23:04:58
Explain to me how he's not. Hows your budget reformation going?
How?
If you want full and absolute honesty I read that as anti "Bush" prejudice, which fits within the conversation, but isn't what you wrote. I typed that up very quickly, I was trying to get to the gym before six.
You have displayed, time and again, anti-British sentiment - this will naturally inform any prejudgements you make on related topics, especially ones which you know little about.
I rib on england because they are the majority non american group on the board. I also rib on conservatives and IGURBAN. It's rarely very real as I have explained (to you) previously. I explained my reasoning to Mattyrm concerning the spineless issue. I also thought Taro Aso was pretty spineless before he got in. Gordon Brown too. I'm generally not bad with personal evaluations based on campaign behavior and it's pretty clear that I'm voicing an opinion.
Ah. The 'humourous deflection'. So now you're taking tips on arguing from Frazzled? Why didn't you just post a picture of a dachshund?
I'm a cat person, and I'm ten times as funny as frazzled.
Or better yet, just admit that you know nothing about the guy aprt from the fact that he's the British PM, and that that's enough for you to base your snideness on. Seriously, I wouldn't mind.
Never.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/26 01:16:14
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
2010/08/26 03:44:56
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
Albatross wrote:I didn't say they were - I'm arguing the exact opposite: That they are crushingly mundane. Certainly not deserving of the seeming shock the OP displayed. Is that not obvious?
These kinds of dealings are common in politics. I have no idea why that makes them acceptable.
Just to repeat, you have a media group giving positive media coverage to a political party in exchange for favourable legislation. It is bad when media organisations decide to give more favourable coverage to one political party, and it is bad when parties draft favourable legislation to repay favours.
What IS that? Seriously? Why do you constantly act like you are talking to a child? It's a really unattractive trait, one which makes you look self-congratulatory and smug.
My first post on the subject didn't treat anyone as a child. I tried for a couple of posts to get people to look at the issue of trading favourable media for favourable legislation and didn't use any dismissive language. I only made a dismissive comment on your post when you made a snippy and particularly weak post in reply to Goliath.
Exactly what is it that I'm not getting? That wealthy and powerful people are wealthy and powerful? Did you think that was some secret knowledge that only you had? Well, SURPRISE! Welcome to the party! The rest of us have been here for a while but I'm sure there's still some booze left... Somewhere. I'm not denying that some backscratching might well have gone on that may have benefitted both parties - it makes sense for Cameron to court a powerful media magnate, and vice versa. Maybe I'm just an irredeemable pragmatist. It's hardly a great scandal, in my opinion - even if this 'pact with the devil' has a shred of truth to it.
You're trying to play both sides here, that this sort of thing goes on all the time and that this is some kind of crazy leftist conspiracy theory. You need to pick one.
mattyrm wrote:Just skip his stuff mate, read Dogmas or Shumas, you get almost the same information but none of the souless grey "learn to read" yawn inducing stuff.
Whereas I'm drawn to your stuff like a moth to a flame, because your posts are always hilarious, especially when you're not telling jokes.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2010/08/26 10:57:49
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
No one is debating stuff like this has been going on for as long as we've had a Government. What I am debating is why should we stand for it?
Why should a few powerful, already filthy rich people make even more money and wield even more power at the expense of the Governments Electorate? This is NOT about the various individual Political Parties, but those who seek to use them for their own ends, particularly when, like Rupert Murdoch, they aren't even a Citizen of the country they are meddling in. And I'm sorry but 'that's the way it is' is categorically not a good enough answer. We are the electorate, we have the power to not only effect change, but to turf out incumbent Governments, forcing a fresh election.
Britain is not alone in this problem either. To quote V for Vendetta 'Governments should be afraid of their people, not the other way around'
2010/08/26 11:43:27
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
Albatross wrote:I didn't say they were - I'm arguing the exact opposite: That they are crushingly mundane. Certainly not deserving of the seeming shock the OP displayed. Is that not obvious?
These kinds of dealings are common in politics. I have no idea why that makes them acceptable.
Just to repeat, you have a media group giving positive media coverage to a political party in exchange for favourable legislation. It is bad when media organisations decide to give more favourable coverage to one political party, and it is bad when parties draft favourable legislation to repay favours.
It hasn't exactly played out like that though, has it? Both the policy to neuter Ofcom and the possible reduction in license fee have been discussed for at least 3 years and are in keeping with party philosphy. It doesn't exactly add up to the 'Cameron destroy BBC for make Murdoch more richer!'-type opinions I've been hearing. I'm not exactly over the moon about the PM getting into bed with people like that but as far as I'm concerned, getting Labour out of power was vital and the Tories needed a massive swing to make that happen. Favourable media coverage is indispensable when attempting such a huge task. It's a back-scratch. It's not like say, agreeing not to oppose the release of a convicted terrorist in order to secure drilling rights in a rogue state.
Exactly what is it that I'm not getting? That wealthy and powerful people are wealthy and powerful? Did you think that was some secret knowledge that only you had? Well, SURPRISE! Welcome to the party! The rest of us have been here for a while but I'm sure there's still some booze left... Somewhere. I'm not denying that some backscratching might well have gone on that may have benefitted both parties - it makes sense for Cameron to court a powerful media magnate, and vice versa. Maybe I'm just an irredeemable pragmatist. It's hardly a great scandal, in my opinion - even if this 'pact with the devil' has a shred of truth to it.
You're trying to play both sides here, that this sort of thing goes on all the time and that this is some kind of crazy leftist conspiracy theory. You need to pick one.
There are elements of both in what I'm saying - politicians and wealthy, powerful businessmen have influence over each other. Crazy leftist conspiracy theorists get all hot under the collar when they 'uncover' things like this, things which all political parties everywhere do. It's really not a big deal.
Edited for missing letter 's'
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/26 23:49:16
Cameron slated Pakistan whilst in India begging for business. Make of that what you will. Me? I think he's an opportunistic slimeball... which lets be fair sums up most of our politicians
Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about his religion. Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life. Beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.
Lt. Rorke - Act of Valor
I can now be found on Facebook under the name of Wulfstan Design
www.wulfstandesign.co.uk
http://www.voodoovegas.com/
2010/08/26 13:25:13
Subject: Re:The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
Is that not a good thing for a leader to be then ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2010/08/26 13:59:02
Subject: Re:The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
Depends if it's used to benefit the country or to make a sound bite.
Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about his religion. Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life. Beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.
Lt. Rorke - Act of Valor
I can now be found on Facebook under the name of Wulfstan Design
www.wulfstandesign.co.uk
http://www.voodoovegas.com/
2010/08/26 14:15:27
Subject: Re:The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
Do you not think it was, if perhaps somewhat crass or obvious I'll grant you, a good move to use tensions atwixt India and Pakistan to our advantage ? It certainly didn't hurt "our" cause in India, and from the loud THANK YOU the Uk has been getting from disaster agencies this week (and the meetings not long after the comments between Cameron and his Pakistani counterpart) we seem to be on alright terms with Pakistan as well.
And we live in the soundbite era, like it or not. Blair was great at that, Brown awful.. and its too early really to judge Cameron either way ( we'll chalk the twitter incident up to inexperience and no real harm done there). I'd rather have a leader who understands this and can use it effectively than not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/26 14:15:51
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2010/08/26 16:09:33
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
I think i have agreed with almost everything Cameron has done since he took over. He is more right wing than the last lot. I just hope he gets down to business and starts hammering the dole scum back into work and thats the next election in the bag. Better than Tony "lets give them all special brew, while Matty grafts to feed their ugly fething kids" Blair.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2010/08/26 22:50:04
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
mattyrm wrote:I think i have agreed with almost everything Cameron has done since he took over.
So.. you're in agreement with all the election "promises" they made that they've since dropped then ? YU're seriously claiming that the appointments of Fox hasn't been one long disaster after another ? And let's not get started on "Fatty" Soames. How about the david Rowland farce then ? That's not sleazy and corrupt ? Really ?
Osbourne looks horrendously worried every time he has to speak in public, and has done huge damage to the coalition by both his treatment of Clegg and Tories such as Ken Clarke and IDS, and still has all those rumours about his past hanging over him to do with his past associations. Cameron can, and should, get away with his "youthful indiscretions", Osbourne has no such luxury.
He is more right wing than the last lot.
Not read Blair's new book then ? It's the best defense of G.W. Bush and his policies outiside of a Republican conference ever.
Rubbish, he's more right wing than Brown I agree, but he's pretty much Blair MK II in pretty much every way.
But, if you mean he'd have been just as enthusiastic to follow America to war and suck up to the neo cons.. well.. maybe.
I just hope he gets down to business and starts hammering the dole scum back into work
Doesn't look like it's going to happen as... A. The economy. B. The actual budget was so piss poorly written and devised it might well in fact be rendered illegal after a legal challenge from members of its' own party. C. The proposals that IDS wants to make -- and fair play to him, I don't agree with all of his thougts but at least he's genuine in his intent and has looked at the issue and spent time thinking about the issue rather than following dogma. It makes him Frank Fields Mk II , but.. hey.. at least he's trying ! -- don't look like they'll get through and if they do will be watered down considerably.
and thats the next election in the bag. Better than Tony "lets give them all special brew, while Matty grafts to feed their ugly fething kids" Blair.
Seeing as he couldn't win the recent election that seems very unlikely.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/08/26 23:25:07
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2010/08/27 00:15:04
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
mattyrm wrote:I think i have agreed with almost everything Cameron has done since he took over.
So.. you're in agreement with all the election "promises" they made that they've since dropped then ?
Well... Ok, but to be fair, he wasn't exactly planning sharing a platform with Clegg's lot, was he? S'all about 'national interest', dontchaknow...
He is more right wing than the last lot.
Not read Blair's new book then ? It's the best defense of G.W. Bush and his policies outiside of a Republican conference ever.
Rubbish, he's more right wing than Brown I agree, but he's pretty much Blair MK II in pretty much every way.
Pft. It's just an easy comparison because Blair is a closet Thatcherite! Cameron was Cameron before Blair became Blair - He hasn't had to change, as he's never been to the far right of the party. 'New' Labour was all about moving closer to Tory financial policy in order to be electable. They even changed the party constitution. The difference was that New Labour was still ostensibly socially liberal. Times moved on, the people moved on and now the Tory party has had to become more socially liberal under Cameron's stewardship in order to be electable. I would never have voted Tory whilst the right wing of the party (Widdecombe, Howard etc.) still had the reins on social policy. It's good that people like that are more at the margins of the party now - sure, throw them an IDS to make them feel like they're represented in the cabinet, but that's about it. I think SuperDave is close to striking the right balance, but as with anything it's a learning process.
But, if you mean he'd have been just as enthusiastic to follow America to war and suck up to the neo cons.. well.. maybe.
Possibly. I actually anticipate a thaw. I can't see Hague and Clinton being bezzie pals either, to be honest. He's earthy and plain-speaking whereas she's an ambitious egotist. I also don't think much of the Obameron relationship. Maybe he'll get on better with the next president...
Albatross wrote:It hasn't exactly played out like that though, has it? Both the policy to neuter Ofcom and the possible reduction in license fee have been discussed for at least 3 years and are in keeping with party philosphy. It doesn't exactly add up to the 'Cameron destroy BBC for make Murdoch more richer!'-type opinions I've been hearing. I'm not exactly over the moon about the PM getting into bed with people like that but as far as I'm concerned, getting Labour out of power was vital and the Tories needed a massive swing to make that happen. Favourable media coverage is indispensable when attempting such a huge task. It's a back-scratch. It's not like say, agreeing not to oppose the release of a convicted terrorist in order to secure drilling rights in a rogue state.
No, it isn't like that. Good thing that played a part in them being kicked out of government. It also isn't as bad as last time this happened, when Murdoch supported the invasion of Iraq in exchange for media liberalisation. Because there's two issues here, misleading media coverage and favours for the rich and powerful.
I think it's disappointing that people are willing to overlook it because it helps get their side into government. Will you be as philosophical when Labour strikes a deal next time around?
There are elements of both in what I'm saying - politicians and wealthy, powerful businessmen have influence over each other. Crazy leftist conspiracy theorists get all hot under the collar when they 'uncover' things like this, things which all political parties everywhere do. It's really not a big deal.
I think you'd have a point if anyone was claiming this is a sudden, once in a lifetime event. I think people acknowledge that this is something both parties do.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2010/08/27 08:44:16
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
Albatross wrote:
Well... Ok, but to be fair, he wasn't exactly planning sharing a platform with Clegg's lot, was he?
Indeed, but severla of the changes -- Europe, prisons etc etc have nothing to do with their coalition partners.
Pft. It's just an easy comparison because Blair is a closet Thatcherite!
I wouldn't go quite that far, but I more or less agree.
Cameron was Cameron before Blair became Blair - He hasn't had to change, as he's never been to the far right of the party. 'New' Labour was all about moving closer to Tory financial policy in order to be electable. They even changed the party constitution. The difference was that New Labour was still ostensibly socially liberal. Times moved on, the people moved on and now the Tory party has had to become more socially liberal under Cameron's stewardship in order to be electable. I would never have voted Tory whilst the right wing of the party (Widdecombe, Howard etc.) still had the reins on social policy. It's good that people like that are more at the margins of the party now - sure, throw them an IDS to make them feel like they're represented in the cabinet, but that's about it. I think SuperDave is close to striking the right balance, but as with anything it's a learning process.
I think perhaps you;re underestimating quite how to the right Cameron was in his younger days, to be fair I think that was largely due to upbringing and the company he kept.
I think many, many people would never have voted tory , especially under the people you listed. That said... Michael Howard came to a dinner at work one time... and he was absolutely charming, couldn't have been nicer, he was nothing like his public persona at all. During breaks in the meal he'd pop into the little staff area where we had a telly to watch the footie with us -- Liverpool were palying in the champions league that night -- and he was a good laugh.
Widdecombe came another time and was generally absolutely as ghastly as you'd imagine she'd be. I believe she's shortly to go on "strictly come dancing" so , maybe, karma exists.
Possibly. I actually anticipate a thaw. I can't see Hague and Clinton being bezzie pals either, to be honest. He's earthy and plain-speaking whereas she's an ambitious egotist. I also don't think much of the Obameron relationship. Maybe he'll get on better with the next president...
at one point this week Hague was at 90% to leave. Especially stupid, as if his private life in this regard should have any affect upon his job.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2010/08/27 09:18:28
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
I always thought Michael Howard seemed a nice bloke.
Widdecombe deserves to be stung to death by bees.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
2010/08/27 09:50:40
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
Albatross wrote:It hasn't exactly played out like that though, has it? Both the policy to neuter Ofcom and the possible reduction in license fee have been discussed for at least 3 years and are in keeping with party philosphy. It doesn't exactly add up to the 'Cameron destroy BBC for make Murdoch more richer!'-type opinions I've been hearing. I'm not exactly over the moon about the PM getting into bed with people like that but as far as I'm concerned, getting Labour out of power was vital and the Tories needed a massive swing to make that happen. Favourable media coverage is indispensable when attempting such a huge task. It's a back-scratch. It's not like say, agreeing not to oppose the release of a convicted terrorist in order to secure drilling rights in a rogue state.
No, it isn't like that. Good thing that played a part in them being kicked out of government. It also isn't as bad as last time this happened, when Murdoch supported the invasion of Iraq in exchange for media liberalisation. Because there's two issues here, misleading media coverage and favours for the rich and powerful.
I think it's disappointing that people are willing to overlook it because it helps get their side into government. Will you be as philosophical when Labour strikes a deal next time around
Well, Murdoch's papers switched their support to Labour shortly before the 1997 election... You see where I'm going with this?
RedS8n wrote:
Indeed, but severla of the changes -- Europe, prisons etc etc have nothing to do with their coalition partners.
Wait, the Lib Dems have nothing to do with Europe? Clegg sleeps with baguette under his pillow every night!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/08/27 13:40:42
..I'm not sure the Bee population, which is already pretty fragile, could recover from losses like that.
OHMYGAWDTORIESWANTTOTAKEAWAYHONEYFROMTHEPOOR11111
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2010/08/27 10:02:11
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
Albatross wrote:Well, Murdoch's papers switched their support to Labour shortly before the 1997 election... You see where I'm going with this?
You still seem to be treating this as an attack on the conservatives. Have you been reading my posts in this thread? My first post pointed out the deal between Labour and NewsCorp over the Iraq war. Whichever political party is involved doesn't matter, what matters is honest journalism and politicians not trading favourable policy for favours.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2010/08/27 10:19:20
Subject: Re:The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
Wait, the Lib Dems have nothing to do with Europe?
They had nothing to do with the Govt. deciding, despite earlier opposition, that in fact the European Investigation Order is a great thing and signing us up to it. And Cameron's blatant fudging and dancinga round the issue of the Lisbon treaty -- dangling the prospect of a referendum despite knowing that it would mean nothing if the act was passed elsewhere .. and, oh look.. no referendum. All of which started last year, well before any coalition or dealings with the Lib Dems. at all.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2010/08/28 01:40:04
Subject: Re:The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
Wait, the Lib Dems have nothing to do with Europe?
They had nothing to do with the Govt. deciding, despite earlier opposition, that in fact the European Investigation Order is a great thing and signing us up to it. And Cameron's blatant fudging and dancinga round the issue of the Lisbon treaty -- dangling the prospect of a referendum despite knowing that it would mean nothing if the act was passed elsewhere .. and, oh look.. no referendum. All of which started last year, well before any coalition or dealings with the Lib Dems. at all.
Well he can't exactly just come out and offer a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty now it's law, can he? He was pretty careful not to guarentee one, as I recall. As far as the EIO (Old Macdonald had a farm... ) goes, I refuse to believe that isn't the result of some backroom deal between the Tories and Lib Dems. We knew there where going to be concessions made, and although I'm admittedly not thrilled about it I can see it's potential uses. I'm thinking it might provide for better co-ordination between forces when dealing with human trafficking organisations which span several countries, and of course the narcotics trade.
The truth is that all of us in the House promised a referendum. We have the courage of our convictions and are sticking to that promise. The Prime Minister has lost his courage..
14th of May 2008, David Cameron...
[Gordon Brown] does not believe in giving people genuine choice and control over their lives. If he did, he would give the country a referendum on the EU constitution..
His interview with the Sun after their infamous Churhcill/2fingers to Brown picture...
"On Monday The Sun's image of Gordon Brown sticking two fingers up to the British public was provocative. But it was right.
What a difference to Churchill. When he made that salute, it inspired this country to wipe the scourge of fascism from Europe...
"...Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: if I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations
swing to Novermber 2009...
"I said we would have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and if it hadn't been ratified we would have had that referendum.
"But I did not promise a referendum come what may because once the Lisbon Treaty is the law, there's nothing anyone can do about it and I'm not going to treat people like fools and offer a referendum that has no effect
Now I agree that it's pointless to hold a ref. if the result isn't going to have any affect, but you're not actually going to claim that when he made the intital statements he didn't think the treaty would have been passed anyway ?
And more importantly, what was the point of the use of the word "guarantee" if he knew it was no such thing ? Not just cheap lies and propaganda to those who have their political decisions "informed" ( term may not conform to accepted defintion of the word) by The Sun...
And the statements coming out from the Cabinet haven't exactly been in line with the Euro bashing we were promised during the election, oh well, la plus ca change.
I'm thinking it might provide for better co-ordination between forces when dealing with human trafficking organisations which span several countries, and of course the narcotics trade.
That's the labour Party line, yeah.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
2010/08/29 01:01:20
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?
I'm not sure it counts as an election promise if he clarified his position that far in advance of the actual election. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see him take a firmer stance on Europe - I'm not just a blind follower of the guy. I remember those particular episodes, and he DID word his statements like that as a sop to the more hardline euroskeptic elements of Conservative support. I recognise that.
Albatross wrote:I'm not sure it counts as an election promise if he clarified his position that far in advance of the actual election. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see him take a firmer stance on Europe - I'm not just a blind follower of the guy. I remember those particular episodes, and he DID word his statements like that as a sop to the more hardline euroskeptic elements of Conservative support. I recognise that.
Isn't that the core of the problem? None of them stand by what they actually believe in. He should say yes or no to Europe, them his party can either keep him of get rid of him. That also applies to any party. If you believe in something you say so, if you lose the position of party leader, then so be it, at least the public know what your party stands for. In the case of europe, if your stands for a no vote and you get kicked at the election, then you know the British public aren't behind you. If you don't, then great you have a mandate from the people to say no. The subject of Europe is a big thing in the UK and therefore we should know what a party really thinks, not try to use smoke & mirrors on your own MP's so that you or your party can stay in power.
Live your life that the fear of death can never enter your heart. Trouble no one about his religion. Respect others in their views and demand that they respect yours. Love your life, perfect your life. Beautify all things in your life. Seek to make your life long and of service to your people. When your time comes to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song, and die like a hero going home.
Lt. Rorke - Act of Valor
I can now be found on Facebook under the name of Wulfstan Design
www.wulfstandesign.co.uk
http://www.voodoovegas.com/
2010/08/29 23:15:06
Subject: The BBC, Murdoch, Cameron and some shady dealings?