Tony Blair: a great Labour man and PM

by sickchip Tue May 29, 2012 7:33 pm

First topic message reminder :

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/9/5/1315228091579/blair-murdoch-007.jpg

The former prime minister was reportedly present in March last year when Murdoch’s two daughters by his third wife were baptised on the banks of the Jordan.

The information was not made public and its disclosure in an interview with Mrs Murdoch in Vogue will prove highly embarrassing for Mr Blair.

His close ties to the Murdochs could explain his reluctance to condemn the News International phone hacking scandal.

In July, it was reported that he asked Gordon Brown to put pressure on Tom Watson, the Labour MP who helped expose the scandal, to drop his investigation.

No mention was made of Mr Blair’s role as a godfather to Grace and he did not appear in pictures of the ceremony, which took place at the spot where it is said that Jesus was baptised.

However, the facts emerged in an interview with Mrs Murdoch in the fashion magazine.

What a great guy! And one of Britain's best PM's ever........and a staunch Labour man at that!

by astra Sat Jun 09, 2012 6:35 pm

by bobby on Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:53 pm

.Now, I agree with sickchip, let's get back on track.

Not until I have recieved an appology for your calling me ignorant.

Find that on "Is Britain's Class System at the route of all our troubles.

Seems some kind of "Baiting" is going on to me!

by oftenwrong Sat Jun 09, 2012 7:25 pm

One of the very first things that a trainee solicitor is made to learn, after how to operate the coffee-maker, is NEVER BE RUDE IN WRITING.

Written evidence is indisputable, and the anonymity of discussion boards can be swept aside by the Law where necessary.

by blueturando Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:09 am

Bobby,

Since you appear to know Saddaam definitely had WMD perhaps you should contact the UN and tell them where they are. You evidently have proof, as your post to blue states.....

.....so maybe you should follow your own instruction to blue, and put up or shut up. Let's see your evidence, bobby

No evidence will be forth coming, just guess work and weak theories to try and cover sacred Tony's ass

Great post Sickchip

by sickchip Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:16 am

Phil Hornby,

.....the shifty Dr David Kelly.

A very unpleasant comment about a dead man. Can you justify labelling David Kelly 'shifty'?

astra,

I do recall reminding bobby that racism is not tolerated on these boards after comments he made......I'm not sure which thread it was; but as I recall his comments began along the lines of 'I'm not racist, but....'. I can't recall the ensuing argument verbatim, but recall the gist of it and will stand by it. We should not turn a blind eye to racist, or homophobic, remarks.

by sickchip Sun Jun 10, 2012 5:52 am

astra wrote:
by bobby on Wed Dec 21, 2011 11:53 pm

.Now, I agree with sickchip, let's get back on track.

Not until I have recieved an appology for your calling me ignorant.
Find that on "Is Britain's Class System at the route of all our troubles.

Seems some kind of "Baiting" is going on to me!

astra,
In what way? Can you explain your post? What do you mean 'baiting'?

If you go to the thread you mention, and actually follow the conversation that is there, you will see no evidence of me and bobby arguing. So I don't really get your reference to it in connection with anything here?

by Mel Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:52 am

Gentlemen. There is evidence of "baiting" going on here and I do recall considering taking Mod action at the time on the thread where bobby was referred to as "homophobic". I let it go as I considered it to be an isolated case. Since that time there has been no occurance.
However the tone meeted out by those who have overstrained views on certain political subject must realise that sort of aggressive posting will raise the hackles of other members who are likely to reply with a certain amount of rudeness in their reply which is equally unacceptable to the rules of this forum.
I therefore suggest that the debate be COOLED!!!! without argument and that the subject matter to be kept on topic.
Many thanks,

Mel.

by Stox 16 Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:01 am

bobby wrote:sickchip. You really are a rudeand nasty little person arent you, a while back you called me a Homophobic racist, and now have resorted to talking out of your arse.
When did I ever say I know or knew where the WOMD went, if I knew I would have told someone, possibly you as you seem to think you know everything. You can write all you like re supposition as to the whereabouts of said weapons, my point is and always has been, is WE DO NOT KNOW, that is with the exception of Blueturando and other who are in denial as to their whereabouts. As I said and stand by. The weapons I talk about can be transported in the glove box of a small car, and leave absolutely no footprint, and of you think that Saddam and his oppo Chemical Ally quietly gave up what they had, then you need to have a reality check. The one thing of consistency re Saddam Hussein was his inconsistency and his dishonesty. He was left to his own devices for a long time before the actual war, so I guess you are stupidly trying to tell me that the CIA and all the other intelligence agencies, monitored every vehicle, and searched every truck that could of and possibly did carry Chemical and biological weapons, I mean. didn‘t he hide some Scud missiles in the desert, which had to be searched for, and they are effing great big things. Thousands of vehicles could have gone out into the desert and hidden them, or as Mel taken across the border to Syria. Remember these weapons are held in small sealed containers, which could include a two pound fifty Thermos flask, so it is impossible to track them as you can nuclear weapons, so how are they tracked, Although you know so much on the subject, you can tell me where they are, because if you even dream Saddam Hussein gave them up, may I suggest you wake up and apologise.

Also as you have made some serious errors regarding what I have said and believe, may I suggest you put as much effort reading what people say, instead of making it up, the spouting your Verbal whatsit.

As for Blue. We enjoy a very vibrant and sometimes heated internet relationship, and although I have never had the pleasure of actually meeting him, as a person I hold him in the very highest esteem, which I do not with you, and it was to him my post was written for. Blue is a very intelligent fellow, and intellectually can runs rings around you, so doesn’t need your interference in any sort of defence, he can and does mannage much better than you, and does it wit honesty and integrity.

Hi Bobby my good friend
Well there was no real evidence given by the UN that there was not WOMD and there has been no evidence that they was not shipped to Syria? as the Iraq Air force was sent to Iran and know one too this day knows what went with them either. but I am very pleased that there are people on here that are more than happy to support Saddam Hussein staying in power. as this whole topic his been about Tony Blair's roll in Gulf War 2. well he was just one of 20 leaders who took part in this war. but then this is nothing to really do with the war is it my good friend bobby. this is all about some people dislike of Tony Blair and Gulf war 2. well that really is there problem and not mine. but if they had there way there would of not been any Gulf war 2 and Saddam Hussein would therefor still been in power today. now they can argue till there blue in the face. but had he still been in power today then he would of carried on his quest for more powerful WOMD much as Iran is seeking today. maybe when Iran has there bomb and tries to set one off in London there be very happy that know one took any action. as sooner or later they will be facing the very same thing Tony Blair had too. but this time we will not have a army left to do anything about it due to Tory party cut. maybe they are just hopping that Iran will get feed up and just go away. well I have met some of these people bobby and I can tell you this much. they will not be going away nor will they worry about what Cancer Cameron has to say. but there is one thing you can put money on. and that is you will be hearing from them very soon. so while they attack what Tony Blair did. I think they should be very careful as it will soon be Cancer Cameron's turn. lets see how clever he is when face with Iran? who know we could well also be facing what the Iraq Air Force took with them as well.

by Stox 16 Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:05 am

blueturando wrote:
Bobby,

Since you appear to know Saddaam definitely had WMD perhaps you should contact the UN and tell them where they are. You evidently have proof, as your post to blue states.....

.....so maybe you should follow your own instruction to blue, and put up or shut up. Let's see your evidence, bobby

No evidence will be forth coming, just guess work and weak theories to try and cover sacred Tony's ass

Great post Sickchip

And your evidence that they are not in Syria will be coming then Blue? as so far you only have theories to cover your attack on Blair. can you really be 100% sure Iraqs WMD will not pop up ever?

by Stox 16 Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:13 am

Redflag wrote:
bobby wrote:Blue said: Without wishing to over old ground again and again. This was at 1.25 pm Today.

Blue
If you didn’t try to keep scoring very weak political points by saying over and over, “Blair’s illegal war”, we wouldn’t then have to educate you as to the facts or lack of them.
In a previous post you mentioned yet again “Blair’s illegal war”, and when challenged to show us the evidence you have to make such a false statement, as per usual, when facts are required you are it seems a long way away.
I will ask you yet again, Where did the WOMD go. As I said we know he had them, as he used them on his own people, then between then and the time of the investigations, they vanished. Will you please tell us where they went, or where they are, or stop lying by telling us repeatedly “Blair’s illegal war, now my friend either put up or shut up, there’s a good little Tory.

According too the news at the time bobby WOMD where shipped into either Libya or Syria, do not know if there is any truth in the report, but you wonder why Sadam would not let the inspectors in so they could do their checks, IMHO they where moves and then dismantled but this is only supposition.

That is the truth of it Red. but this is all about attack Tony Blair and those who did not really like anything he did. you have to sink down very low to have to us this war. but if it was down to them Saddam would still be in power today and they would seem to be very happy for him to carry on with his quest for WMD.

by sickchip Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:32 pm

Stox,

The issue here isn't the invasion of Iraq. The issue is the 'lie' about WMD and the '45min threat' that was used to dupe people into condoning the invasion.

It's all very well saying you support the invasion; but to support the excuse (WMD, 45min warning, etc) given is wrong, and sets a dangerous precedent - ie. anytime we want to invade another country we can simply invent a reason......does that really sound ok?

On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

On February 6, 2003, Powell appeared before the UN to "prove" the urgency to engage a war with Iraq. Although the presentation failed to change the fundamental position of the Security Council, including France, Russia, China, and Germany, Powell succeeded in hardening the overall tone of the United Nations towards Iraq. Powell also claimed that Iraq harbored a terrorist network headed by al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (in a small region controlled by Ansar al-Islam), despite much evidence to the contrary[citation needed]. Powell also showed photos of what he said was a poison and explosives training camp in northeast Iraq, operated by the group. When this camp was visited by a British journalist two days later, all that was found was a few dilapidated buildings and no evidence or signs of any terrorist activity, chemical or explosives. Powell alleged that these training camps had been operating with help from Iraqi agents, despite them being in the northern Iraqi Kurdistan "no-fly zone", and thus outside of de facto Iraqi control. Powell also claimed that Iraqis visited Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and provided training to al-Qaeda members, although thousands of Arabs from many countries did the same. US intelligence agencies have found no evidence of any substantive collaboration between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. While Colin Powell's statement to the UN may have been accepted as "proof" by many in the US, this was not the case in Europe, where there was widespread scepticism of any links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The British government's intelligence services did not believe there was any link at all, given the mutual hatred between Islamists and the secular regime in Baghdad.

In 2004 and 2005 Colin Powell acknowledged that much of his 2003 UN presentation was inaccurate:

"I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for [the mobile bio-labs], and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid. April 3, 2004
I feel terrible ... [giving the speech] ... It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now." 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War

by ROB Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:33 pm

Stox 16 wrote:
… this is all about attack Tony Blair and those who did not really like anything he did. you have to sink down very low to have to us this war. but if it was down to them Saddam would still be in power today and they would seem to be very happy for him to carry on with his quest for WMD.

All so very true.

Additionally, Saddam the beast was the primary WMD. In the words of the NRA, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”

by oftenwrong Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:52 pm

Stox 16 wrote:

That is the truth of it Red. but this is all about attack Tony Blair and those who did not really like anything he did. you have to sink down very low to have to us this war. but if it was down to them Saddam would still be in power today and they would seem to be very happy for him to carry on with his quest for WMD.

Unhappily, Blair joined Bush in a War against the wrong target. It wasn't Saddam who carried out the 9/11 attack. The subsequent invasion of Iraq was the unfocussed reactive sting of an angered wasp. What has been the result? (Apart from enriching Tony Blair).

by ROB Sun Jun 10, 2012 2:19 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Unhappily, Blair joined Bush in a War against the wrong target.

Saddam the beast was the right target, and had been the right target since he “Stalined” his way into power (count the Baath Party bodies), even though our blind administrations, self-saddled by the notion that the enemy of my enemy is my ally, explicitly and implicitly rubber-stamped his evil acts until Saddam the beast invaded Kuwait in 1990.

Two right targets ought not ever to be viewed ass mutually exclusive; Osama, Saddam, and their respective beast-lings were and are all right targets.

oftenwrong wrote:
It wasn't Saddam who carried out the 9/11 attack.

It was Saddam the beast that invaded Kuwait. It was Saddam the beast that attempted to gather unto himself weapons-grade fissionable material for “peaceful purposes.” It was Saddam the beast that terrorized, tortured, raped, and murdered Iraqi citizens.

Saddam the best = right target

oftenwrong wrote:
.. unfocussed…

The initial invasion and restoration of Iraq to its rightful owners was extremely well focused. The problem, only apparent later, was lack of an exit strategy. “Boots on the ground” soldiers have told me (you know to whom I listen) that we should have pulled out of Iraq as rapidly as we rolled into Iraq no later than late summer 2004.

The reason may not be what you think. Suffice it to say that limited resources needed to be focused long term on killing al qaida, which was difficult with a substantial portion of our joint resources (US, UK, and the other nations with sufficient courage and commitment to what’s right to join in) bogged down in glorified rent-a-cop duty after the war had been won and we should have been long gone.

by Mel Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:12 pm

At the time of making the decision to go to war it was based upon "Intelligence" information.
Politicians and Generals act and always have acted upon intelligence gathering. Correct or not, the possible threat of "45 min warning" if not addressed and a calamity was the result, too late to argue if the information received was incorrect. "FALSE" information is different to incorrect information for one is showing deceit whilst the other an error.

What proof is there either way?as no tangible evidence was nor is forthcoming.
If some similar evidence were to have been available before 911, do you think it would have been prudent or not to take out Bin Laden had he been visible?

by astra Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:36 pm

Sickchip at 3.16hrs.

I do not think Phil was saying Dr Kelly was shifty!

The people who wanted war were calling him all sorts of things. Do you remember the "Are you being taken for a patsy" remark? That was totally out of order! Plenty people "of influence" were doing their damndest to smear him, and Phil - not that he needs me to speak for him, was pointing that out.

At the time, I thought questions should have been asked on two sudden deaths - John Smith MP and Robin Cook MP but that is just me.

AGAIN you take words of posters as VERBATIM and do not look at our individuality and how posts can mean many things to many people. unfortunately you seem to look for the worst common denominator.

I am not a recist but..... yes that is correct. And you picked on it with some righteous spleen and like a terrier would not let go.
Bobby was speaking his thoughts, again he does not need me to speak for him.

Where in the law of this land is it unlawful to think??

5.22 hrs post.

If you think Bobby or I are members of the BNP or some other bunch of nutcases, OK THAT is your right to think.

Just don't say it to us in a pub somewhere

by sickchip Sun Jun 10, 2012 3:53 pm

Mel,

Except they knew the 45min warning was errant nonsense.

Major General Michael Laurie, one of those involved in producing the dossier wrote to the Chilcot inquiry in 2011 saying "the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care." On 26 June 2011, The Guardian reported on a memo from John Scarlett to Blair's foreign affairs adviser, released under the Freedom of Information Act, which referred to "the benefit of obscuring the fact that in terms of WMD Iraq is not that exceptional". The memo has been described as one of the most significant documents on the September dossier yet published as it is considered a proposal to mislead the public.

Britain's biggest selling popular daily newspaper, The Sun (Murdoch), subsequently carried the headline "Brits 45 Mins from Doom", while the Star reported "Mad Saddam Ready to Attack: 45 Minutes from a Chemical War", helping to create the impression among the British public that Iraq was a threat to Britain.

For what it's worth - IMO, Sadaam was not a threat to the UK or US, despite 13yrs of cruel sanctions killing tens of thousands of Iraquis prior to the 'illegal' (as stated by kofi annan of the UN) invasion.

Maybe if the UN had been allowed to continue dealing diplomatically with Iraq a more peaceful resolve may have ensued; and lives wouldn't have been lost (both sides), and £billions of taxpayers money would've been saved.....or spent more wisely?

Rock,

rent-a-cop duty after the war had been won and we should have been long gone.

I don't believe we should've been long gone - we invaded in a fit of pique post 9/11, or as oftenwrong put it with the unfocussed reactive sting of an angered wasp. So in terms of being long gone - I disagree. You take actions......and you have to take responsibility for those actions.

A little logic, and rationale, might've saved us a few quid though!

by sickchip Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:02 pm

astra,

I've looked for the thread concerning the wee fracas about 'racism' stuff but can't find it. I wonder if it's been removed....if so, why? I do recall the gist of it and stand by my point in it regarding bobby's remarks.

In terms of Phil's comment about Dr. David Kelly ie. 'shifty' - fair enough maybe I just interpreted it wrongly.

by **Ivan** Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:04 pm

sickchip. Three points:-

1. Your recent quotations are much too long, please go back and reduce them. Wikipedia has been changing its terms and conditions, and currently I’m not sure what they are, but irrespective of that, our house rule is that quotes must not exceed 14 or 15 lines. Longer quotes are quite unnecessary. Post a short extract from an article and add the link, so that those who wish to read the rest of it can do so. Then we know that we’re not transgressing any copyright laws.
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t137-copyright-concerns

I’m asking moderators to delete on sight all future postings that don’t comply with our rules on copyright. We don’t have the time or inclination to prune them ourselves; it’s up to posters to make the effort to comply with a simple rule.

2. Please don’t post messages in red, use any other colour. Red is used to indicate where a message has been moderated.
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t391-posting-tips

3. Telling someone to “put up or shut up” could be called ‘baiting’, so don’t imply that your recent spat was all one-sided. That is a commonly used expression, but you’re still suggesting that someone maybe needs to shut up, and that’s not nice.

by trevorw2539 Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:05 pm

Astra quote.
Where in the law of this land is it unlawful to think??

“Do not think - that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword" Matthew 10:34. Ooops - wrong thread Wink

by **Ivan** Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:13 pm

I should have added that there are two exemptions from our copyright rules. They are where a poster can demonstrate that he or she has permission to reproduce someone else’s work, and where a member is quoting from his or her own blogs on other sites.

by sickchip Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:25 pm

Ivan,

Telling someone to “put up or shut up” could be called ‘baiting’, so don’t imply that your recent spat was all one-sided. That is a commonly used expression, but you’re still suggesting that someone maybe needs to shut up, and that’s not nice.

Might I remind you - it was bobby who used the term 'put up or shut up' against blue..........adding a derogatory 'little tory boy'.

I agree it was offensive, and was merely replying in kind using the same level of rhetoric, and respect, towards bobby in order to make the point that he would not like being told to 'put up or shut up'. And he didn't - did he? So maybe he'll think twice about now, and show a little more respect towards others.

I find it odd that I get warned over this on an open page. Shouldn't your warning be directed at bobby, or at least equally?

Posters were warned not to use Blair, Camercon, etc.......yet several posters are still using such terms as Maggot (Thatcher), and Camercon, etc. Can we please have an end to it?

I haven't posted in red.

Other posters post quotations that are far lengthier than mine.

by **Ivan** Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:39 pm

sickchip. Two wrongs don't make a right, both with regard to name-calling (which I'll leave to Blamhappy, and if necessary Shirina, to deal with) and breaches of our copyright rules. Your quotes were too long, full stop.

The quotes of skwalker1964 are indeed longer than yours, because they're part of his own work transferred here from another site. If you find any examples of where our house rules have been breached, I'd be grateful if you would bring them to the attention of the staff. Thank you.

by Mel Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:46 pm

Chip,
After the event all kinds of baloney comes out, even from Military Generals especially if they are of a certain political persuasion.

by sickchip Sun Jun 10, 2012 4:55 pm

Ivan,

As I explained - I used the language bobby previously used towards blue, in order to draw his own ill manners to his attention. I was not wrong to do so.....somebody had to point it out. I take it bobby is being spoken to about calling me a rude and nasty person who talks out their arse.

So you warn me, and not bobby on this occasion......fair enough! At least I know where I stand.

by astra Sun Jun 10, 2012 7:10 pm

Chip, can't find the thread either, I do remember MEL was the moderator, and I thort we wez gonna get smacked

ER, all over now!!

by **Ivan** Sun Jun 10, 2012 7:13 pm

Sorry to be pedantic, David, but I think the Afghanistan invasion started in October 2001. Probably doesn't affect whatever point you were trying to make though!

by **Ivan** Sun Jun 10, 2012 7:49 pm

sickchip. One of our Tory friends tried to suggest that others were allowed to break copyright rules, and that was untrue. I know you’re certainly not a Tory, so that disproves his theory. More Labour than Tory supporters have fallen foul of our rules, no doubt because there are more Labour supporters here than Tories. I can assure you – and both Shirina and Blamhappy will do the same – that the rules apply to everyone, regardless of political affiliation. And Shirina has already made it clear that if I break the rules, I’ll get moderated too. That’s fair enough, nobody’s above the law.

With regard to the contents of messages, there is a clear dividing line on this forum: they’re a matter for Shirina, Mel, Blamhappy, astradt1 and moonbeam. Part of my job is to ensure that the forum operates well within the law. You and I are old acquaintances from MSN days (and so is bobby), and I appreciate the support of both of you for this forum and the previous one with ProBoards. I wish I could just let you post whatever you like, but if we ever get into legal difficulties about copyright, it will be me and Shirina in the dock, not you. When my home has dissolved into legal expenses, it will be me and my West Highland Terrier in a cardboard box at Waterloo Station, not you. Please cut me some slack, mate!

by **Phil Hornby** Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:06 pm

On your way to Waterloo Station, Ivan, do pop in here for a beer first. I'll cook some chicken for the dog, too.... Very Happy

by **Ivan** Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:09 pm

LMAO. Not sure if Pease Pottage is on the route! Laughing

by **Phil Hornby** Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:13 pm

Then I'll move...! Very Happy

by astra Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:17 pm

David, this whole Afghanistan thing is beyond my ken, BUT, it has been going on for years and years. Not only the Russians gave up.

This poem is for the SECOND Afgan War!! in 1878!

When ever was the "First" Afgan War??

How Blair and Bush EVER thought they would crush this hornet's nest is beyond me http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/gems/general-roberts-in-afghanistan

by bobby Sun Jun 10, 2012 10:11 pm

sickchip. Firstly let me say You are a Liar. Before I said anything detrimental to or about you, you called me homophobic and a racist, this was witnessed by two people, one astra, who apparently agreed with me, the other was Mel. Now either you are a filthy liar, or we three are, what is it.
So stop all this nonsense and simply stop thinking, cos It aint doin you no good. You know bugger all about weapons of mass destruction and your only answer is to print what others have said, in fact I will go so far as to say you know very little at all. I have never known anyone quite the like of you, you pick up on a point a word or part of a statement and just keep on and on and on about it refusing to let go, thereby exacerbating your lies. Now you excuse for an dishonest man, you can run to the moderators yet again to fight your battles, and I am off to better things, where a man can be a man, and not subject to moderation for any slight thing that upsets the delicacies of people who have no place on an open forum , especially when emotive subjects like politics are concerned, and one that allows little pricks like you on them.
I have not in the several years, going back to msn used other peoples words, and have copy pasted just a few times, yet have been called vile names by something that doesn’t seem like he is capable of original thought. As Astra imlied, you wouldn’t dare say such a thing if you met me in a pub, and you are the very worst type of Keyboard Gangster. So sickwhatsit carry on with your miserable little life, and I will be off earning lots more money than my employees.

I would like to say, thank you to the friends I have been fortunate to make the acquaintance of, To name some. Ivan, Mel, Astra (V), Stox, red cat woman, red flag, TLTTF and others, and of course not forgetting Blueturando.
By All

by sickchip Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:00 pm

bobby,

1. If you read back on this thread you will see I stand by the wee argument we had about your, imo, racist comments elsewhere.....as I say that thread appears to have disappeared now...why?? I picked you up on it because racism is not tolerated on these boards. As far as I recall that was the only dispute, 'til now, I've had with you. That dispute is nothing to do with this - in fact I'd forgot about it until you brought it up here.

2. The dispute here concerns this: Your put up or shut up, there's a good little tory comment to blue was, imo, unacceptable. I used the same language towards you in a counter argument to your assertion re: WMD; and it transpired you couldn't take your own medicine. Let's hope you'll think twice about how you address people from here on - though judging from your recent post to me (by bobby at 10:11 pm), it seems not.

3. It's the second time in recent posts here I've been told I wouldn't dare say such things if I met you in a pub - why? What is being implied? Violence? You'd get the beers in? Pray tell? And just so you're clear on this - I would have said exactly the same in conversations to your face.

4. I haven't reported you to the moderators.

5. I'm not going to debate with you about WMD, or anything else......what's the point! I think the tone of your previous post demonstrates it would be a waste of my time.

That is my final word on the matter. Neutral

by blueturando Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:40 pm

Bobby and Sickchip....

Please can we all start over??? I didn't respond to Bobby's remark because I didn't want this sort of thing to happen.....I don't want to see anyone leaving the forum for something so trivial.

Politics can evoke heated discussion...and so it should. In my opinion it shows we care and politics matters.
All I will say is that if a poster is prepared to give out, then they must also be prepared to receive.

thanks Blue

by trevorw2539 Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:58 pm

blueturando wrote:Bobby and Sickchip....

Please can we all start over??? I didn't respond to Bobby's remark because I didn't want this sort of thing to happen.....I don't want to see anyone leaving the forum for something so trivial.

Politics can evoke heated discussion...and so it should. In my opinion it shows we care and politics matters.
All I will say is that if a poster is prepared to give out, then they must also be prepared to receive.

thanks Blue

Excuse me butting in. I came on cuttingedge2 after seeing some of the posts. I have never been very politically minded, my interests being elsewhere, but I thought I would be able to learn from the obviously politically intelligent posters here, left and right.. My lack of knowledge politically means I don't post much on the subject, and what I do post is shallow stuff compared with others. What I did not expect, or want to see, was the start of WW3. Crying or Very sad

Heavens. If you had been abused as much as I have on the old MSN threads, regarding my religious views, you would have melted by now.
Please, please calm it. I would like to learn more. Embarassed

Oh, and is it biologically possible to talk out of one's ..erm...back passage. Wink

by Mel Mon Jun 11, 2012 1:59 pm

Thanks blue, very helpful advise although rules are rules and have to be adhered to by ALL.

by Mel Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:03 pm

Thank you too Trevor. "I do post is shallow stuff"

I must say I have not noticed that Trevor, in fact quite the contary.

by sickchip Mon Jun 11, 2012 2:40 pm

Trevor,

Oh, and is it biologically possible to talk out of one's ..erm...back passage.

https://youtu.be/f9Gm6NXKX08

...not sure - but one might be able to hum a tune Very Happy

by trevorw2539 Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:04 pm

Sickchip. not sure - but one might be able to hum a tune

Tried it. All the plants in the room are now drooping. Air freshener working overtime :oops:

by polyglide Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:42 pm

I do not like getting involved in politics but just had to have a look at what people thought about Blair.

In my opinion to weigh Blair up you just have to look at the way he falsified the War.

It had to be done, so he said and WE must fight.

His two sons who should have been the first into battle if the problem was so great, were being pampered in America etc: and his wife was making millions out of the Human Rights Act that give rights to everyone other than the hard working men and women who pay for all the legal aid that Bairs wife has been raking in.

Blair in my opinion should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Just a thought.

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:41 pm

Quote :"Oh, and is it biologically possible to talk out of one's ..erm...back passage"

Quote : "Blair in my opinion should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity."

Proof, it appears, that the answer the original question is a resounding "Yes!" Very Happy

by Sponsored content