tonyh29 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Another case of you seeing what you want to see but missing the point entirely. You did actually but hey ho the jury rests M'Lord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 the jury rest M'Laud and the jury found him guilty as charged :-) Anyway so you happy with Cameron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 just wondering whats this ahh but labour thing. Surely they should be mentioned if making comparisons etc. If not wouldn't it be like reading a post match thread and only making comments on how the Villa played, with no reference to the opposition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 the jury rests M'Lord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Will the latest smoke coming about the Tory party Paedophile link be dealt with correctly? How will this impact the party or any party if one of their members is found to be guilty? No doubt political mileage will be made but is this outside the realms of what party politics should be about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 just wondering whats this ahh but labour thing. Surely they should be mentioned if making comparisons etc. If not wouldn't it be like reading a post match thread and only making comments on how the Villa played, with no reference to the opposition? It depends if the sole basis of any argument you have when questioning the current Gvmt is to say "ahhh but Labour did ....." as though that was some sort of justification. Your comparison to match threads is flawed. Both teams play in that match, in this context only one team are playing. Anyway you happy with Cameron? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Am I happy with Cameron? Happy would be a massive overstatement but look at the alternatives...... An escaped Aardman character? A man called Balls? My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.... Mr Balls. (Doesn't work does it really?) Clegg? A man with about as much credibility in Politics as Jimmy Saville has in childcare. Other alternatives are what? Osbourne, Boris? Nick Griffin? Today's sandal wearer in the Green Party? or todays Chairman of the Socialist Workers Party or the Working Socialists or any other noisy irrelevence. Seems like the best of a bad lot to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 and the jury found him guilty as charged :-) Anyway so you happy with Cameron? I wanted Alan Duncan as I've stated previously ( he wasn't an expenses crook then honest) so the full answer would be "No" As PM Cameron has made mistakes , but I think long as he grows a pair and stands up to the party he will turn things around , the election is still a way off so he has time to restore voter confidence , I still don't think the UK want Milliband as PM and that will go some way in Cameron's favour , even though it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Cameron himself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Will the latest smoke coming about the Tory party Paedophile link be dealt with correctly? How will this impact the party or any party if one of their members is found to be guilty? No doubt political mileage will be made but is this outside the realms of what party politics should be about? apparently not Shouldn't be any cover ups on an issue like this , if it goes to the top then build a bigger scaffold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Will the latest smoke coming about the Tory party Paedophile link be dealt with correctly? How will this impact the party or any party if one of their members is found to be guilty? No doubt political mileage will be made but is this outside the realms of what party politics should be about? Yes. There is no place for politics in these investigations - the only blur will come if an existing politician of ANY colour is still holding office or influence. This will not just affect the Tories the fallout will taint everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 It depends if the sole basis of any argument you have when questioning the current Gvmt is to say "ahhh but Labour did ....." as though that was some sort of justification. Your comparison to match threads is flawed. Both teams play in that match, in this context only one team are playing. Anyway you happy with Cameron? :-) but isn't that what people do, make comparisons in debates. OK if you don't agree with the match thread, lets say the Darren Bent thread, there are plenty of posters suggesting Benteke and Agbonlahor should be playing, Thereby making a comparison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 but isn't that what people do, make comparisons in debates. OK if you don't agree with the match thread, lets say the Darren Bent thread, there are plenty of posters suggesting Benteke and Agbonlahor should be playing, Thereby making a comparison Ahhhh but Bent........ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 but isn't that what people do, make comparisons in debates. OK if you don't agree with the match thread, lets say the Darren Bent thread, there are plenty of posters suggesting Benteke and Agbonlahor should be playing, Thereby making a comparison No I think you are wrong again with that. Look at Tony's "defence" re the Tory members gaining financially because of NHS privatisation. It was to mention a Labour member who is no longer a MP and something that happened many years again, rather than the point being raised. Basically it had nothing to do with the issue other than because seemingly one Ex-Labour MP had got some dosh previously that made it OK for the Tory Gvmt to gain accordingly. How does that work again? It's an accusation that many are making now against this Gvmt where nearly every scripted answer they give is a reference to the previous Gvmt rather than debating and explaining their actions. This was supposed to be a transparent Gvmt, a lie, one that would be judged by its actions, but when their seemingly sole source of justification by it and its supporters is to blame the opposition it soon becomes obvious that is has little faith in what it is doing and when you see that they are gaining individually (while still bleating about being in this together) it becomes even more of a sham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 but surely the expenses scandal showed that the vast majority of politicians are dishonest and are out to make whatever they can,whichever colours they wear. So on balance Tony responded to the post which implied, to my mind anyway, that Tory mps are on the make. When in reality its most politicians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 You wont find me arguing with you re political bods (at all levels) being corrupt at worst, egotistical a'holes at best in general. The point was a simple one, that something as crucial as the NHS, something that Cameron lied about during the election, something that they continue to lie about is being privatized by a bunch of people who will all benefit personally from this. You may be OK with that but luckily most people are not exactly impressed with them and rightly will show them for being the hypocrites that they really are. From your previous posts I suspect you are a Tory supporter (if you are not then I am sorry for making that assumption I appreciate it's a terrible thing to be called :-) ) would you agree that Tory party in general have an image problem and that is not helped by Cameron et al basically being unable or unwilling to explain the reasoning behind their policies? I suspect we will not agree on if this is relevant but so be it. I am happy to point out whenever and wherever that saying "ahh but Labour ...." to every questioning of this Gvmt is not the way to get across any sort of argument or justification. A couple of times maybe but every time? Nah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Agree with lots you say there. I have an opinion where MP's should not have a business interest in anything which receives public money. And not be allowed to vote on anything where they may be able to gain financially. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I like that :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 but surely the expenses scandal showed that the vast majority of politicians are dishonest and are out to make whatever they can,whichever colours they wear. So on balance Tony responded to the post which implied, to my mind anyway, that Tory mps are on the make. When in reality its most politicians Plenty of MPs have exploited the expenses they claim. Some have broken the law in doing so. Lots of them take directorships and the like, profiting from their connections. These things are on a continuum from undesirable to downright illegal. I see these things as different from breaking up and selling off our NHS and personally profiting from doing so. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 but surely the expenses scandal showed that the vast majority of politicians are dishonest and are out to make whatever they can,whichever colours they wear. So on balance Tony responded to the post which implied, to my mind anyway, that Tory mps are on the make. When in reality its most politicians Indeed and I also pointed that out in my reply ( well one of them anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Plenty of MPs have exploited the expenses they claim. Some have broken the law in doing so. Lots of them take directorships and the like, profiting from their connections. These things are on a continuum from undesirable to downright illegal. I see these things as different from breaking up and selling off our NHS and personally profiting from doing so. With regards to the current "privatisation" it turns out Patricia Hewitt , Frank Field , Alistair Darling , David Milliband , Alan Milburn have been involved with private healthcare companies are likely to personally benefit from the situation. in fact over 200 parliamentarians had financial interests in companies involved in private healthcare at the time of the Health and Social Care bill being debated and voted on in both houses. yet for some reason the "amusing" GIF only appears to show Tory MP's ..who'd have thunk it of course we all know the ahhh but labour excuse isn't allowed , so lets just stick to saying it's only Tories that are going to profit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts