Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Scooter

Pages: (11) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >

Rev. BigDumbChimp Posts: 185 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:23    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,13:04) Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 03 2007,12:57) Read this. It's a good timeline on the whole deal with Scooter Libby. He was the head of staff for Vice Pres. Cheney who  president Bush just basically let out of an imposed prison sentence of 30 months for lying to the courts. But its much more involved than that. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story....00.html Please tell me I am wrong here. The link looks as though somebody upset a politician and so a politically apointed (non-elected) person gave away details of a US CIA agent to upset her husband. Is that correct? I hope I am wrong as that would be too bad. It's it's most boiled down form that's part of it yes. It more goes to a pretty serious crisis that we in the US have been having with our President thinking that he is above the law and above our constitution. It all started with the trumped up evidence that was used to get us into the current war in Iraq. Bush and his cronies didn't like that the fact that someone was calling them on their bullshit. They then decided to out the whistleblower's wife as an undercover CIA agent. This is a big no no. During the course of trying to determine who the person was who outed Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby lied in court about various conversations, times lines and such, thus committing perjury. Being in the position he is in and being that our Vice President basically is an evil dishonest son of a bitch who has no use with the law, the President decided to laet him out of jail. That is a very condensed version of the events. If anyone would like to add or subtract please feel free.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:26    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:44) ... I personally hate milk snatcher with a passion. As was stated on Mock The Week once: "Her grave is going to become a urinal for all decent people". and "So many people will want to dance on her grave they'll need to scatter her ashes in Ibiza." That would probably depend upon where you live. If you was a resident of the Falkland Islands or some parts of Eastern Europe you may just have a different opinion. I aint claiming she was perfect. Just that your POV may depend upon geography.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:51    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,13:21) Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard): http://michellemalkin.com/2007....omments Thanks rich, I think I may not be able to eat for a couple days now.  I only made it through the first dozen or so comments--calls for the president to be castigated because he didn't offer a full pardon, total dismissal of the rule of law, and the obvious calls for the slamming of whatever the liberals may do....  tardarific. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Rev. BigDumbChimp Posts: 185 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,13:55    Quote (blipey @ July 03 2007,13:51) Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,13:21) Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard): http://michellemalkin.com/2007....omments Thanks rich, I think I may not be able to eat for a couple days now.  I only made it through the first dozen or so comments--calls for the president to be castigated because he didn't offer a full pardon, total dismissal of the rule of law, and the obvious calls for the slamming of whatever the liberals may do....  tardarific. Malkin isn't as in your face "Ghengis Cunt" as Coulter but she's close.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:04    Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 03 2007,13:55) Quote (blipey @ July 03 2007,13:51) Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,13:21) Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard): http://michellemalkin.com/2007....omments Thanks rich, I think I may not be able to eat for a couple days now.  I only made it through the first dozen or so comments--calls for the president to be castigated because he didn't offer a full pardon, total dismissal of the rule of law, and the obvious calls for the slamming of whatever the liberals may do....  tardarific. Malkin isn't as in your face "Ghengis Cunt" as Coulter but she's close. The Kansas City Star runs her fairly regularly.  I almost always try to work my way through Malkin, but it usually hurts.  It was much better when the column next to hers was Molly Ivins, may she rest in peace. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:08    Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 03 2007,13:23) ... It's it's most boiled down form that's part of it yes. It more goes to a pretty serious crisis that we in the US have been having with our President thinking that he is above the law and above our constitution. It all started with the trumped up evidence that was used to get us into the current war in Iraq. Bush and his cronies didn't like that the fact that someone was calling them on their bullshit. They then decided to out the whistleblower's wife as an undercover CIA agent. This is a big no no. During the course of trying to determine who the person was who outed Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby lied in court about various conversations, times lines and such, thus committing perjury. Being in the position he is in and being that our Vice President basically is an evil dishonest son of a bitch who has no use with the law, the President decided to laet him out of jail. That is a very condensed version of the events. If anyone would like to add or subtract please feel free. Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country?

Rev. BigDumbChimp Posts: 185 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:25    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08) Quote (Rev. BigDumbChimp @ July 03 2007,13:23) ... It's it's most boiled down form that's part of it yes. It more goes to a pretty serious crisis that we in the US have been having with our President thinking that he is above the law and above our constitution. It all started with the trumped up evidence that was used to get us into the current war in Iraq. Bush and his cronies didn't like that the fact that someone was calling them on their bullshit. They then decided to out the whistleblower's wife as an undercover CIA agent. This is a big no no. During the course of trying to determine who the person was who outed Valerie Plame, Scooter Libby lied in court about various conversations, times lines and such, thus committing perjury. Being in the position he is in and being that our Vice President basically is an evil dishonest son of a bitch who has no use with the law, the President decided to laet him out of jail. That is a very condensed version of the events. If anyone would like to add or subtract please feel free. Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country? Well it's really more about the man who was criticizing the Bush policies and the lies that bush told than about Libby. He just ended up being the fall guy for the whole deal due to his own perjury. They used his wife (the CIA agent) as a tool to get back at him and to send a message to others who might be critical of the administration that they would stoop to any level to get back at people and to protect their power. This is far from over.

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:30    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08) Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country? I don't think the comparison you are making is the correct one.  Libby isn't the show here and I have a hard time sharing everyone's indignation at the decision to commute his sentence.  To be sure, it is a crime that he lied to a grand jury and he was probably complicit in the underlying crime of outing Valerie Plame in the first place. But, it is my opinion that Libby is basically a useful idiot, a fall guy.  The real problem children in this whole sordid affair are Cheney and, most likely, Karl Rove.  So, it wasn't a matter of trading off Plame for Libby.  Rather, Plame "had" to be outed to shore up the edifice of the Administrations justification for going into Iraq.  Libby was a tool of the adminstrations policy and a sacrifice to the special prosecutor. The commutation of his sentence was, as I have heard it described, the way to shield him from punishment, but keeping the conviction on the books so that, if hauled before Congress, he can still invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify against himself (and, by extension, his bosses.)  Sweet little deal. -------------- It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,14:37    Quote (carlsonjok @ July 03 2007,14:30) Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08) Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country? I don't think the comparison you are making is the correct one.  Libby isn't the show here and I have a hard time sharing everyone's indignation at the decision to commute his sentence.  To be sure, it is a crime that he lied to a grand jury and he was probably complicit in the underlying crime of outing Valerie Plame in the first place. But, it is my opinion that Libby is basically a useful idiot, a fall guy.  The real problem children in this whole sordid affair are Cheney and, most likely, Karl Rove.  So, it wasn't a matter of trading off Plame for Libby.  Rather, Plame "had" to be outed to shore up the edifice of the Administrations justification for going into Iraq.  Libby was a tool of the adminstrations policy and a sacrifice to the special prosecutor. The commutation of his sentence was, as I have heard it described, the way to shield him from punishment, but keeping the conviction on the books so that, if hauled before Congress, he can still invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify against himself (and, by extension, his bosses.)  Sweet little deal. Damn.  For a talking horse head, you sure do make a lot of sense. And if you talked out of your other end you'd be the one granting the pardon, I mean commuting the sentence? -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,15:21    Quote (carlsonjok @ July 03 2007,14:30) Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08) Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country? I don't think the comparison you are making is the correct one.  Libby isn't the show here and I have a hard time sharing everyone's indignation at the decision to commute his sentence.  To be sure, it is a crime that he lied to a grand jury and he was probably complicit in the underlying crime of outing Valerie Plame in the first place. But, it is my opinion that Libby is basically a useful idiot, a fall guy.  The real problem children in this whole sordid affair are Cheney and, most likely, Karl Rove.  So, it wasn't a matter of trading off Plame for Libby.  Rather, Plame "had" to be outed to shore up the edifice of the Administrations justification for going into Iraq.  Libby was a tool of the adminstrations policy and a sacrifice to the special prosecutor. The commutation of his sentence was, as I have heard it described, the way to shield him from punishment, but keeping the conviction on the books so that, if hauled before Congress, he can still invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify against himself (and, by extension, his bosses.)  Sweet little deal. I strongly suspect (but don't expect to ever see proof) that Libby knew this was the deal all along.  He takes the fall for his boss, his boss' boss makes sure he never sees any jail time, the slush fund takes care of the $250,000, Fourth-branch Dick continues to walk the earth a free man, everyone's happy.  I think this was all explained to him before Plame was ever outed. It was wrong to let him off, but I can think of one or two others who should have been thrown into a deeper, darker hole for a lot longer. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,17:01    Quote (deejay @ July 03 2007,11:24) Bush will (hopefully) pay a stiff political price for this move, and I imagine that it will stand as a primary example of his imperial approach to the presidency. Alas, he won't be criticized at all for his imperial presidency.  That's because the US people (and both political parties) don't HAVE any gripe with empire. Their gripe is that Dubya is screwing it up with his incompetence.  If Dubya had run roughshod over Iraq in three weeks, like he planned on doing, he'd be celebrated as a hero right now. Neither Democans nor Republicrats would reject the idea that the US has the inherent right to unilaterally run the world as it sees fit.  We are, after all, the, uh, "only remaining superpower". -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,18:21    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,13:26) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,06:44) ... I personally hate milk snatcher with a passion. As was stated on Mock The Week once: "Her grave is going to become a urinal for all decent people". and "So many people will want to dance on her grave they'll need to scatter her ashes in Ibiza." That would probably depend upon where you live. If you was a resident of the Falkland Islands or some parts of Eastern Europe you may just have a different opinion. I aint claiming she was perfect. Just that your POV may depend upon geography. Oh, the falklands was a great victory. Except the UK practically invited the invasion by pulling out the defence forces. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 03 2007,22:00    Quote (Roland Anderson @ July 03 2007,12:40) Quote (Louis @ July 03 2007,09:17) Maggie Thatcher (ex-UK PM) I do wish that people would refer to Lady Thatcher by her correct title, which is "That Fucking Thatcher Cow". I hate her more that I hate anyone. I hope she dies in pain. What's that Elvis Costello line: "When England was the whore of the world / Margaret was her Madam" -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

deejay Posts: 113 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,07:24    Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2007,13:21) Provides 2400% of your RDT (Recommended Daily Tard): http://michellemalkin.com/2007....omments That would be the Vitamin A of Tard, wouldn't it? As in high levels are toxic.

deejay Posts: 113 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,07:56    I extend my thanks to both our resident reverends for replies to my earlier comment.  I feel, well, is "blessed" the right word?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,09:20    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,18:21) ... Except the UK practically invited the invasion by pulling out the defence forces. I have not heard about that. Are you certain that the defence forces where halved imediately before the invasion? Even if true, why would that be an invitation to invasion? I don't consider Thatcher to be evil BTW. She had some bad policies and some good ones. You probably don't remember the state of the country before she came to office. We had a shedload of problems back in the 70's.   Quote (carlsonjok_Posted on July 03 2007 @ 14:30) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 03 2007,14:08) Not sure what to say. So a desk driving political employee is considered worth more than someone who actually does risk their life in service to country? I don't think the comparison you are making is the correct one.  Libby isn't the show here and I have a hard time sharing everyone's indignation at the decision to commute his sentence.  To be sure, it is a crime that he lied to a grand jury and he was probably complicit in the underlying crime of outing Valerie Plame in the first place. But, it is my opinion that Libby is basically a useful idiot, a fall guy.  The real problem children in this whole sordid affair are Cheney and, most likely, Karl Rove.  So, it wasn't a matter of trading off Plame for Libby.  Rather, Plame "had" to be outed to shore up the edifice of the Administrations justification for going into Iraq.  Libby was a tool of the adminstrations policy and a sacrifice to the special prosecutor. The commutation of his sentence was, as I have heard it described, the way to shield him from punishment, but keeping the conviction on the books so that, if hauled before Congress, he can still invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify against himself (and, by extension, his bosses.)  Sweet little deal. Cheers for the correction. I probably shouldn't have commented in the first place as my knowledge on the subject is extremely sketchy.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,09:27    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,09:20) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 03 2007,18:21) ... Except the UK practically invited the invasion by pulling out the defence forces. I have not heard about that. Are you certain that the defence forces where halved imediately before the invasion? Even if true, why would that be an invitation to invasion? I don't consider Thatcher to be evil BTW. She had some bad policies and some good ones. You probably don't remember the state of the country before she came to office. We had a shedload of problems back in the 70's. The forces were removed not long before the attacks. How is that NOT an invitation? The Argentines wanted them back because they're strategically important, and we have left with the door wide open. No, I don't recall what it was like in the 70's. I wasn't born then, but I DO know what she did, and what life was like before then. I studied that vicious lying woman in detail because I wanted to know why everyone hated her, and why there were riots in the streets. Now I know, she sold the UK up the river and didn't care. I'm no patriot, but if you're in charge of a country, you do NOT do that. Bringing it back on topic, I think Bush has done a similar thing here, except instead of gutting the economy, he's let someone who broke the law and should be brought down to the fullest extent of the law off practiaclly scot free. It's a disgrace. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,09:46    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,09:27) The forces were removed not long before the attacks. How is that NOT an invitation? The Argentines wanted them back because they're strategically important, and we have left with the door wide open. No, I don't recall what it was like in the 70's. I wasn't born then, but I DO know what she did, and what life was like before then. I studied that vicious lying woman in detail because I wanted to know why everyone hated her, and why there were riots in the streets. Now I know, she sold the UK up the river and didn't care. I'm no patriot, but if you're in charge of a country, you do NOT do that. Bringing it back on topic, I think Bush has done a similar thing here, except instead of gutting the economy, he's let someone who broke the law and should be brought down to the fullest extent of the law off practiaclly scot free. It's a disgrace. What forces where removed and when? I still don't see that (if true) is an invitation to atack. When was the Falkland Islands part of an independent Argentina? BTW. Not everyone (even in the UK) hated her. Under Thatcher some things got worse but some things got better. IMO she was not an evil person. I do remember some of the stuff that happened in the 60s-70s here. Power cuts, 3 day weeks, people in full employment requiring benefits to live, food and fuel shortages etc. TBH the main topic here is beyond my comprehension as I am ill-informed of the detail.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,09:59    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,09:46) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,09:27) The forces were removed not long before the attacks. How is that NOT an invitation? The Argentines wanted them back because they're strategically important, and we have left with the door wide open. No, I don't recall what it was like in the 70's. I wasn't born then, but I DO know what she did, and what life was like before then. I studied that vicious lying woman in detail because I wanted to know why everyone hated her, and why there were riots in the streets. Now I know, she sold the UK up the river and didn't care. I'm no patriot, but if you're in charge of a country, you do NOT do that. Bringing it back on topic, I think Bush has done a similar thing here, except instead of gutting the economy, he's let someone who broke the law and should be brought down to the fullest extent of the law off practiaclly scot free. It's a disgrace. What forces where removed and when? I still don't see that (if true) is an invitation to atack. When was the Falkland Islands part of an independent Argentina? BTW. Not everyone (even in the UK) hated her. Under Thatcher some things got worse but some things got better. IMO she was not an evil person. I do remember some of the stuff that happened in the 60s-70s here. Power cuts, 3 day weeks, people in full employment requiring benefits to live, food and fuel shortages etc. TBH the main topic here is beyond my comprehension as I am ill-informed of the detail. Name some of the good she did then. Actual good. Stuff that didnt turn out to be a way in for her cronies. When you come up with stuff ask yourself was it worth it? I know some people like her. So what? Some people like Nick Griffin (No, I'm not saying they are the same, just that people like different things, some of them things they shouldn't like). I don't get how you don't see the removal of the defense force (cutting down that is, not total packing of bags) is an invitation. If you know that someone wants something of yours, if you turn your back and go "oops, can't see it now, hope no one steals it" how is that NOT an invitation to steal it (albeit with implication you're going to get it back)? Things weren't great in the 60's/70's, but at least the economy was, you know, THERE. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:25    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,09:59) Name some of the good she did then. Actual good. Stuff that didnt turn out to be a way in for her cronies. When you come up with stuff ask yourself was it worth it? I know some people like her. So what? Some people like Nick Griffin (No, I'm not saying they are the same, just that people like different things, some of them things they shouldn't like). I don't get how you don't see the removal of the defense force (cutting down that is, not total packing of bags) is an invitation. If you know that someone wants something of yours, if you turn your back and go "oops, can't see it now, hope no one steals it" how is that NOT an invitation to steal it (albeit with implication you're going to get it back)? Things weren't great in the 60's/70's, but at least the economy was, you know, THERE. Well some good stuff. In 1978 a lance corporal in the British army earned so little that he would be getting welfare payments to support a family. Now a lance corporal had on average served more that 3 years in the army. Yet still required welfare to support a wife and child. In the early 70s late 60s my mother used to go to every single shop in town before purchasing food so that she could save a penny or 2 on each item. Cash was tight. Those things changed under Thatcher's government. You still haven't shown evidence that the FI defence force was cut in half yet. Why not? I am not dissputing it BTW, you may be correct, I just aint seen evidence. Now as to "invitation". Since when is a reduced guard = to an invitation? If I guard my property with a fully loaded 2 barelled shotgun then take 1 cartridge out is that an invitation to tresspass on my property? I don't think so. Why would an Argentine claim to the Falklands be legitimate?

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:33    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,10:25) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,09:59) Name some of the good she did then. Actual good. Stuff that didnt turn out to be a way in for her cronies. When you come up with stuff ask yourself was it worth it? I know some people like her. So what? Some people like Nick Griffin (No, I'm not saying they are the same, just that people like different things, some of them things they shouldn't like). I don't get how you don't see the removal of the defense force (cutting down that is, not total packing of bags) is an invitation. If you know that someone wants something of yours, if you turn your back and go "oops, can't see it now, hope no one steals it" how is that NOT an invitation to steal it (albeit with implication you're going to get it back)? Things weren't great in the 60's/70's, but at least the economy was, you know, THERE. Well some good stuff. In 1978 a lance corporal in the British army earned so little that he would be getting welfare payments to support a family. Now a lance corporal had on average served more that 3 years in the army. Yet still required welfare to support a wife and child. In the early 70s late 60s my mother used to go to every single shop in town before purchasing food so that she could save a penny or 2 on each item. Cash was tight. Those things changed under Thatcher's government. You still haven't shown evidence that the FI defence force was cut in half yet. Why not? I am not dissputing it BTW, you may be correct, I just aint seen evidence. Now as to "invitation". Since when is a reduced guard = to an invitation? If I guard my property with a fully loaded 2 barelled shotgun then take 1 cartridge out is that an invitation to tresspass on my property? I don't think so. Why would an Argentine claim to the Falklands be legitimate? If you remove the very thing that is keeping someone off property you see as being yours then they're likely to nick it. If you reduce the size of a force to a number small enough that the opponents could easily take what they want and what they think is theres (note, I did not say they had a legit claim) then they aren't likely to stand about playing with string. I'm looking for it, I'm sure that's what I read about it, and I'm looking, but I'm also doing other things, so it's not nuber 1 priority right now. (It's good to have a civilised discussion). -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:34    Umm, Stephen, I think you are conflating things here.  A wage rise for a group of people who were underpaid (as indeed my mother was as a teacher at the time) does not translate into good things going on at the level of the country.   What Thatcher and her cronies did that was unforgiveable was throw several million onto the scrap heap and not give them a hand off it.  When I was in Sheffield a few years ago, they had as a news item the amazing idea that they could re-train ex colliery and steel workers as electricians and joiners and suchlike.  This should have been done decades ago.   The only reason Thatcher could afford to do what she did was North sea oil. Another point- the reasons why people are better off today have little to do with her and her friends- cheap foreign labour, increased division of labour and improved technology make a big difference.  On the macro scale, the UK economy grew more in the 30 years after WW2, as in % growth, than it did under her rule! What perhaps you could say is that her inspired destructionism meant that the UK got a head start into the brave new world of services, and as such has been able to make more money quicker than some other countries.  Of course whether you regard such a brave new world, with the attendant good and bad things, as overall a good thing depends on your viewpoint.

skeptic Posts: 1163 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:43    The level of ignorance here is astounding but I won't comment on that.  What I do wonder is why is this crap being floated on this board?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:47    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,10:33) If you remove the very thing that is keeping someone off property you see as being yours then they're likely to nick it. If you reduce the size of a force to a number small enough that the opponents could easily take what they want and what they think is theres (note, I did not say they had a legit claim) then they aren't likely to stand about playing with string. I'm looking for it, I'm sure that's what I read about it, and I'm looking, but I'm also doing other things, so it's not nuber 1 priority right now. (It's good to have a civilised discussion). Oh, I don't mind staying civilised. Despite what I have said I am not a Maggie fan. I just do not see her as evil. The country she "inherited" was a mess and some things improved under her government. Not everything BTW. As to the FI defence, take your time. I just do not recall the defense being weakend imediately prior to the invasion. IIRC the marines on FI was twice the normal amount at the time of the invasion (still only about 2 platoons BTW). No, you did not state that Argentina had a legitimate claim. I had just implied that is what you meant from previous (indirect) comments.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,10:54    Quote (guthrie @ July 04 2007,10:34) Umm, Stephen, I think you are conflating things here.  A wage rise for a group of people who were underpaid (as indeed my mother was as a teacher at the time) does not translate into good things going on at the level of the country.   What Thatcher and her cronies did that was unforgiveable was throw several million onto the scrap heap and not give them a hand off it.  When I was in Sheffield a few years ago, they had as a news item the amazing idea that they could re-train ex colliery and steel workers as electricians and joiners and suchlike.  This should have been done decades ago.   The only reason Thatcher could afford to do what she did was North sea oil. Another point- the reasons why people are better off today have little to do with her and her friends- cheap foreign labour, increased division of labour and improved technology make a big difference.  On the macro scale, the UK economy grew more in the 30 years after WW2, as in % growth, than it did under her rule! What perhaps you could say is that her inspired destructionism meant that the UK got a head start into the brave new world of services, and as such has been able to make more money quicker than some other countries.  Of course whether you regard such a brave new world, with the attendant good and bad things, as overall a good thing depends on your viewpoint. Some good points. I don't really want to say that Thatcher was perfect, she wasn't. I do think that reducing the power of the unions was good thing though. I am saying that as a member of a strong union BTW. But in the 60s-70s Unions where spoiling the country IMO. I agree that a working person should earn enough to suport a family, but they should have to do productive work. Agh! I am sounding like a Thatcher fan. I am not. I just do not accept that she was evil and was plotting to make life worse for everyone in the working class.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,11:02    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,10:47) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,10:33) If you remove the very thing that is keeping someone off property you see as being yours then they're likely to nick it. If you reduce the size of a force to a number small enough that the opponents could easily take what they want and what they think is theres (note, I did not say they had a legit claim) then they aren't likely to stand about playing with string. I'm looking for it, I'm sure that's what I read about it, and I'm looking, but I'm also doing other things, so it's not nuber 1 priority right now. (It's good to have a civilised discussion). Oh, I don't mind staying civilised. Despite what I have said I am not a Maggie fan. I just do not see her as evil. The country she "inherited" was a mess and some things improved under her government. Not everything BTW. As to the FI defence, take your time. I just do not recall the defense being weakend imediately prior to the invasion. IIRC the marines on FI was twice the normal amount at the time of the invasion (still only about 2 platoons BTW). No, you did not state that Argentina had a legitimate claim. I had just implied that is what you meant from previous (indirect) comments. Ah, my bad, it was AFTER the start of the invasion. The defence was small to begin with (FAR too small) and they invaded without provocation, so we pulled out THEN. Appologies for the mixup in the timeline. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,11:06    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,10:54) Quote (guthrie @ July 04 2007,10:34) Umm, Stephen, I think you are conflating things here.  A wage rise for a group of people who were underpaid (as indeed my mother was as a teacher at the time) does not translate into good things going on at the level of the country.   What Thatcher and her cronies did that was unforgiveable was throw several million onto the scrap heap and not give them a hand off it.  When I was in Sheffield a few years ago, they had as a news item the amazing idea that they could re-train ex colliery and steel workers as electricians and joiners and suchlike.  This should have been done decades ago.   The only reason Thatcher could afford to do what she did was North sea oil. Another point- the reasons why people are better off today have little to do with her and her friends- cheap foreign labour, increased division of labour and improved technology make a big difference.  On the macro scale, the UK economy grew more in the 30 years after WW2, as in % growth, than it did under her rule! What perhaps you could say is that her inspired destructionism meant that the UK got a head start into the brave new world of services, and as such has been able to make more money quicker than some other countries.  Of course whether you regard such a brave new world, with the attendant good and bad things, as overall a good thing depends on your viewpoint. Some good points. I don't really want to say that Thatcher was perfect, she wasn't. I do think that reducing the power of the unions was good thing though. I am saying that as a member of a strong union BTW. But in the 60s-70s Unions where spoiling the country IMO. I agree that a working person should earn enough to suport a family, but they should have to do productive work. Agh! I am sounding like a Thatcher fan. I am not. I just do not accept that she was evil and was plotting to make life worse for everyone in the working class. I don't think she set out to, she just didn't care if she did. She totally gutted the economy, thanks to her, we now have virtually no primary or secondary industry. Oh, and Skeptic, WHO is being ignorant, pray tell? -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,11:25    Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,11:06) I don't think she set out to, she just didn't care if she did. She totally gutted the economy, thanks to her, we now have virtually no primary or secondary industry. Oh, and Skeptic, WHO is being ignorant, pray tell? I think that the blame is missplaced. We had virtually no (internationally) competitive industry before she became prime minister. BTW. Don't bother with skeptic as I doubt he/she will bother to give a honest answer.

"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank Posts: 2560 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,11:46    Quote (skeptic @ July 04 2007,10:43) The level of ignorance here is astounding but I won't comment on that.   Expert on British history, are ya, Skeptic? -------------- Editor, Red and Black Publishers www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

IanBrown_101 Posts: 927 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 04 2007,11:54    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ July 04 2007,11:25) Quote (IanBrown_101 @ July 04 2007,11:06) I don't think she set out to, she just didn't care if she did. She totally gutted the economy, thanks to her, we now have virtually no primary or secondary industry. Oh, and Skeptic, WHO is being ignorant, pray tell? I think that the blame is missplaced. We had virtually no (internationally) competitive industry before she became prime minister. BTW. Don't bother with skeptic as I doubt he/she will bother to give a honest answer. We had an economy. Her reigime started brightly, and rapidly fell into being one of the worst in many a year. I don't think she was "evil" just unprincipled, self centred, domineering and cruel. -------------- I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest. You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK Roddenberry is my God.

Pages: (11) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard