Change font size
It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:59 am


Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 2   [ 17 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Framing the argument
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:45 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
David Cameron as an individual, writes Charlie Moore, throws up no insuperable barriers for the majority of voters by his class background. He is patently an able, presentable, decent representative of the well-off, well-educated, mainly southern, upper middle classes who have helped preserve our national stability for two centuries or more. You may not particularly like the type, but you would have to be quite bigoted to say that he was not fit to be prime minister.

Bigoted? Is that the best he can do?

View full article here

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Framing the argument
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:29 pm 

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 4:20 pm
Posts: 79
Quote:
Bigoted? Is that the best he can do?


A 'bigot' was once the term applied to a group of people who knew the most important secret of the Second World War; namely the beaches, the dates and the forces involved in the planning of Overlord, the greatest invasion ever envisaged.

These people were considered worthy of trust; they walked with the knowledge that the slightest mistake could and would cost thousands of lives, and possibly lose the War into the bargain. All the Bigot's delivered; they kept their word, their promises and their solemn oaths, of duty, service and loyalty to the Allied cause, and so helped to win the War

David Cameron could not possibly be a 'Bigot'.

_________________
I am not a number: I am a free Man!

http://mikecunningham.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Framing the argument
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:41 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 7:23 am
Posts: 252
Location: Police State
RAENORTH wrote:
David Cameron as an individual, writes Charlie Moore, throws up no insuperable barriers for the majority of voters by his class background. He is patently an able, presentable, decent representative of the well-off, well-educated, mainly southern, upper middle classes who have helped preserve our national stability for two centuries or more. You may not particularly like the type, but you would have to be quite bigoted to say that he was not fit to be prime minister.

Bigoted? Is that the best he can do?

View full article here

Call me a bigot then.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Framing the argument
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 9:00 am
Posts: 472
bigot begot bigot by God


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Framing the argument
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:57 pm 

Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:27 pm
Posts: 1074
Location: Oxford, UK
It isn't his background that makes him unfit to be prime minister, but his performance. Lack of principle doesn't help. but even that is not a disqualifier. It's just the sheer tony blair slick arsehole show with no solid backing, the willingness to say anything to get through one more day and the increasingly intrusive bumbling incompetence. That'll do for now.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Framing the argument
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:58 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:44 pm
Posts: 264
How can these supposedly intelligent people on their high salaries not realise the difference between stockpiling coal in 1984 and the current fuel crisis?

A key difference is that only people who were actually involved in stockpiling the coal in 1984 actually knew it was going on. It was not public knowledge and the public wasn't involved so there was no panic.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Framing the argument
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 7:40 pm 

Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:31 pm
Posts: 364
Techno wrote:
How can these supposedly intelligent people on their high salaries not realise the difference between stockpiling coal in 1984 and the current fuel crisis?

A key difference is that only people who were actually involved in stockpiling the coal in 1984 actually knew it was going on. It was not public knowledge and the public wasn't involved so there was no panic.

So you think, apparently, that the Only Ones and your Betters should be the only people to have fuel? Because after all, surely you realize THEY have stockpiled for themselves. But then Mere Citizens do not have anything worth using fuel on now, do they? Unless, perchance, they could deliver some cocktails to the Only Ones and your Betters through their bedroom windows in the middle of the night...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Framing the argument
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:26 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 2:03 pm
Posts: 437
Dr. N said:
Quote:
Bigoted? Is that the best he can do?
Indeed, the term betrays limited vocabulary: 'verbally challenged' users have no better way to express themselves. These puppets throw PC terms around the way their 'perceived' serfs use swearwords!

I'm so sick of "bigot" that I checked the etymology. Both the OED and Chambers suggest froggish origins for the word. OED gives an earliest English example from 1598 - they add: "It is uncertain whether the Middle French word shows a direct connection with Old French bigot, attested in the 12th cent. as an offensive name given to the Normans (and also attested in both England and France as a byname, earliest in the 11th cent.). " ** Ah well, ever closer 'attestation' of our ever closer union.

Interesting, though, that the term harks back to kermits ... like those other sounds that ring out so well in froggish: "xenophobe" "europhile." Like all that franco-german claptrap theory, in fact.

So I say 'bigot' suits blancmange chops well; he should take it and wear it with his shirtsleeves, instead of trying to turn it back against us. Not that one would suggest that he and Moore have ever dined together PDT_Armataz_01_32

**"bigot," n. and adj. Oxford English Dictionary Online.Third edition, September 2008; online version March 2012. <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/18890>; accessed 31 March 2012. An entry for this word was first included in New English Dictionary, 1887.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Framing the argument
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:58 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 10:39 pm
Posts: 129
Me - bigot.

Charlie Moore - fuckwit.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Framing the argument
PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 10:46 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 2:30 am
Posts: 3172
Location: portugal/germany
Political Correctness, as in all other things it would appear, has its exceptions. In the US, which goes from madness to madness by the hour, the black community has described the alleged killer of one of its brothers as a 'White Latino'....he could well have been a Native American but he would have had to be a 'White Native American' in order to justify that Whitey is at it again.
Here, the 'race card' is, mostly, not played by the indigenes as it is deemed rather stupid. But that leaves us without a scapegoat on which to vent our dislike? No, not really....there are always the Toffs...as easily identified as by skin colour...too much money, Public School, Oxbridge & a whiney accent which is offensive to our ears.
None of these things has any bearing on the intelligence, leadership qualities & other attributes we require of those who are supposed to lead us. Both Toffs & hoi polloi produce brilliant folk in equal quantity but, if there's any mud-slinging to be done the target is always the Toffs who cannot run squealing to the Race Relations Board claiming discrimination.
Just thinking.

_________________
Know thine enemy..........The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
Ronald Reagan.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Framing the argument
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:08 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 5:44 pm
Posts: 264
mmatis wrote:
Techno wrote:
How can these supposedly intelligent people on their high salaries not realise the difference between stockpiling coal in 1984 and the current fuel crisis?

A key difference is that only people who were actually involved in stockpiling the coal in 1984 actually knew it was going on. It was not public knowledge and the public wasn't involved so there was no panic.
So you think, apparently, that the Only Ones and your Betters should be the only people to have fuel? Because after all, surely you realize THEY have stockpiled for themselves. But then Mere Citizens do not have anything worth using fuel on now, do they? Unless, perchance, they could deliver some cocktails to the Only Ones and your Betters through their bedroom windows in the middle of the night...
You're missing the point. Our political "leaders" think that the two things are comparable but they are not. This would not be a problem if it weren't so obviously guiding their strategic decisions.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Framing the argument
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:43 am 

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:26 am
Posts: 1291
Location: UK
Quote:
ministers were replaced by "non-political experts who know how to run large organisations"

I.e. technocractic appointments. How EU. These skills should exist within the civil service. If necessary, imported from the private sector. Although, as that becomes increasingly corporatist, they will also become politicians rather than doers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Framing the argument
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:48 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:11 am
Posts: 24869
Location: Bradford
ELF wrote:
Quote:
ministers were replaced by "non-political experts who know how to run large organisations"

I.e. technocractic appointments. How EU. These skills should exist within the civil service. If necessary, imported from the private sector. Although, as that becomes increasingly corporatist, they will also become politicians rather than doers.


I am glad you picked that up. From where does this absurd idea come that these people are not political?

_________________
We are a satellite state of the Greater European Empire, ruled by a supreme government in Brussels. We owe this government neither loyalty nor obedience. It is not our government. It is theirs. It is our enemy.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Framing the argument
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:05 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 8:50 pm
Posts: 175
RAENORTH wrote:
I.e. technocractic appointments. How EU. These skills should exist within the civil service. If necessary, imported from the private sector. Although, as that becomes increasingly corporatist, they will also become politicians rather than doers.
I am glad you picked that up. From where does this absurd idea come that these people are not political?


The word technocratic doesn't imply any technical competence ability does it ?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Framing the argument
PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:26 am 

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:03 pm
Posts: 1050
Normally I dont want government interference in what one does but ; Cameron , Clegg , Blair . A good argument to close public schools .


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicPost a reply Page 1 of 2   [ 17 posts ]
Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
610nm Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net