roosterboost Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 This is priceless But go on then - from your extensive studies of Michael Crawford and Princess Di, perhaps you could tell us why people voted for them? Actually I'm more interested in the reasons why some folk think their personal prejudice holds more weight than the 1.7 million folk who took part in the survey. Perhaps you could enlighten us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ladd Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Although I personally consider Blair to be far and away the worst prime minister there's been in my lifetime, people still don't love him or loathe him in the same way they did Thatcher. She attracted a very special sort of loathing from many, many people. The sort of loathing that led to her winning three consecutive elections with huge majorities. The sort of loathing that led to more trade union members voting for her than voted for Labour. The sort of loathing that led to the UK coming from "the sick man of Europe" to leading the free world economically. She restored pride in our country by standing up to an Argentinian fascist junta. She saved our country from revolutionary socialists such as Scargill and the union barons of the time. Her example and challenge to socialism led to the Labour party aping her policies and maintaining a capitalist economy to the benefit of the vast majority of the country. She was, without doubt the greatest PM we ever had in peacetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Actually I'm more interested in the reasons why some folk think their personal prejudice holds more weight than the 1.7 million folk who took part in the survey. Perhaps you could enlighten us. Are we talking about the "X-factor" and "Big Brother" generation? I used to think that the film "Idiocracy" was fiction but I'm beginning to think it's getting to be more of a documentary.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuttsie Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 I'd probably second that. I'm not entirely sure the violence has ended in NI, you still hear of bombs but things are seemingly better than they were ... or is there a media blackout? Read the Irish papers you will soon see that things are not as piece full as we are led to believe. ---------- Post added 22-01-2015 at 11:40 ---------- The sort of loathing that led to her winning three consecutive elections with huge majorities. The sort of loathing that led to more trade union members voting for her than voted for Labour. The sort of loathing that led to the UK coming from "the sick man of Europe" to leading the free world economically. She restored pride in our country by standing up to an Argentinian fascist junta. She saved our country from revolutionary socialists such as Scargill and the union barons of the time. Her example and challenge to socialism led to the Labour party aping her policies and maintaining a capitalist economy to the benefit of the vast majority of the country. She was, without doubt the greatest PM we ever had in peacetime. Piecetime:hihi::hihi::hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Are we talking about the "X-factor" and "Big Brother" generation? I used to think that the film "Idiocracy" was fiction but I'm beginning to think it's getting to be more of a documentary.. That's the thing about public opinion. It is their opinion. My mother used to tell me that the Beatles were rubbish. But the hundred million who bought their records had a different opinion. So who was right? My mother or those hundred million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Actually I'm more interested in the reasons why some folk think their personal prejudice holds more weight than the 1.7 million folk who took part in the survey. Perhaps you could enlighten us. Well the 1.7 million who took part in the survey also have their personal prejudices. Now tell us, what is it about Michael Crawford and Princess Di, that made people vote for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 That's the thing about public opinion. It is their opinion. My mother used to tell me that the Beatles were rubbish. But the hundred million who bought their records had a different opinion. So who was right? My mother or those hundred million? I suspect there was more than your mum who thought the Beatles were rubbish but I'm not talking about relative values of "rubbish" .. just that we seem to be in a spiral of dumbing down.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Has it occurred to you that if they delayed their flight time by another 2 hours the numbers of victims could have been massively increased as a consequence? Both those buildings had a capability of 50,000 . What is this. So you're saying the nice Islamist terrorists let them off by not waiting for a couple of hours until the buildings were even more filled with people at 11am? Has it occurred to you they could have staged it at night and done it at not 11am but 11pm and only killed about 200 janitors and cleaners? They were trying to kill as many as they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 What is this. So you're saying the nice Islamist terrorists let them off by not waiting for a couple of hours until the buildings were even more filled with people at 11am? Has it occurred to you they could have staged it at night and done it at not 11am but 11pm and only killed about 200 janitors and cleaners? They were trying to kill as many as they could. If they were planning on killing as many as they could then why did they fly round all the sections of the pentagon that were busy,and hit the only section that wasnt being used? "The fact that the one sparsely occupied section of the Pentagon was struck is made even more remarkable by the maneuver required by the jetliner that approached and supposedly crashed into the building. It approached Washington from the west, and executed a 330-degree descending spiral, losing 7000 feet in under three minutes, and leveled out to an approach so shallow that it clipped lamp poles hundreds of feet away from the crash site. Air traffic controller Danielle O' Brien thought it was a military plane, based on this maneuver." http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/location.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 If they were planning on killing as many as they could then why did they fly round all the sections of the pentagon that were busy,and hit the only section that wasnt being used? "The fact that the one sparsely occupied section of the Pentagon was struck is made even more remarkable by the maneuver required by the jetliner that approached and supposedly crashed into the building. It approached Washington from the west, and executed a 330-degree descending spiral, losing 7000 feet in under three minutes, and leveled out to an approach so shallow that it clipped lamp poles hundreds of feet away from the crash site. Air traffic controller Danielle O' Brien thought it was a military plane, based on this maneuver." http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/location.html How were the terrorists meant to know what part of the Pentagon was busy and what part wasn't being used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now