mj.scuba Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 Condescending codswallop. Yes, but entirely apt for the post I was replying to, equally condescending codswallop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptowngirl Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 Hardly lies. He's rather "porky" looking, and has promised to repeal the hunting ban. But as my post was in response to ratrace's claim that Cameron went fox hunting, calling ratrace a liar is perfectly accurate. Regarding the porky looking, I think the one eyed Scottish idiot has Cameron pipped on that count, and has proven form in the lies department for good measure. I take it that you are a Labour supporter and therefore your idea of truth is somewhat different from the rest of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jethete Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 But as my post was in response to ratrace's claim that Cameron went fox hunting, calling ratrace a liar is perfectly accurate. Regarding the porky looking, I think the one eyed Scottish idiot has Cameron pipped on that count, and has proven form in the lies department for good measure. I take it that you are a Labour supporter and therefore your idea of truth is somewhat different from the rest of the population. Cameron HAS promised to allow a free vote on hunting with dogs and DID used to go hunting foxes. I wouldn't vote tory for this alone never mind the fact that I don't think he and Osborne could run a whelk stall! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 Cameron HAS promised to allow a free vote on hunting with dogs and DID used to go hunting foxes. I wouldn't vote tory for this alone never mind the fact that I don't think he and Osborne could run a whelk stall! Why are you worried about a free vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jethete Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 Why are you worried about a free vote? Because if the tories have a majority it would be likely that the ban would be repealed in a free vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 Because if the tories have a majority it would be likely that the ban would be repealed in a free vote. So democracy would win....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Rich Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 So democracy would win....? More a case of the lunatics being in charge of the asylum. Trying to bring back this repulsive activity shows who is pulling Cameron's strings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormy Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 Who might that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 Because if the tories have a majority it would be likely that the ban would be repealed in a free vote. A free vote is exactly what it is, I think they would lose even with an overall majority. If that were to happen, it would strengthen the ban, given it would not have been voted for on party orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uptowngirl Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 Cameron HAS promised to allow a free vote on hunting with dogs and DID used to go hunting foxes. I wouldn't vote tory for this alone never mind the fact that I don't think he and Osborne could run a whelk stall! I think you will find that Blair also promised a free vote on hunting with dogs. It doesn't concern me that Cameron and Osborne can't run a whelk stall, just so long as they can run the country. That is something that Brown and Darling have proved time and time again that they cannot do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.