Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
OverSword

Johnny Rotten scolds haters

71 posts in this topic

Not sure what your point is.

My point was that in giving your examples to justify disrespecting a funeral you chose the fact the husband of alcoholism, that speaks volumes to me.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's not how it works is it? We have two 'parties' to choose from and they are as bad as each other. The promises that are made immediately before an election are rarely/never kept and yet the British public still think along the lines of it being their 'duty' to vote(although the number who do is decreasing every year). The MPs say whatever it takes to get them elected and then once in office they totally disregard the petitions and interests of the populace.

Perhaps we can imagine the British public have some sense for a moment. In that case, they know as well as you or I that pre-election promises are rarely kept and will therefore re-elect someone based on what they have done in office. So this only supports what I already said - she represented the will of the majority of the people. That's what democracy is.

The Falklands War: population of Falkland Islands = 2,841. Number of British personnel killed: 255. Estimated cost of war: £2.8 BILLION!

Thatcher, the friend and protector of General Pinochet ........ that well known butcher of Chilean citizens.

So in one sentence you criticise her for preventing an invasion of people who (democratically) wish to be British and in the next you criticise her for supporting a dictator.

One or the other, you can't have it both ways. Personally, I think she was right on the Falklands and wrong on Pinochet. You?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Policies that the entire populace agree with isn't how it works either - so no matter how much you dislike the women you can't complain she wasn't doing what the will of the people wanted, you can only say she didn't do what you wanted.

My point was that in giving your examples to justify disrespecting a funeral you chose the fact the husband of alcoholism, that speaks volumes to me.

I must be tired because you're not making sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I must be tired because you're not making sense to me.

I'll make it simpler then:

You said that Prime MInisters should do what the will of the people is (I don't agree with that, they sell an idea and see who goes with it, but that's not the point)...they don't do what the will of all the people is in every policy, they do what the will of those that voted for them is (assuming they want re-electing).

You talk of showing no respect for her funeral (fair enough) but when asked the respect her family at this time you give an example of her husband being an alcoholic as a reason for opinion on her family.

If that isn't the case then can you explain what you meant?

Edited by Sky Scanner
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we can imagine the British public have some sense for a moment. In that case, they know as well as you or I that pre-election promises are rarely kept and will therefore re-elect someone based on what they have done in office. So this only supports what I already said - she represented the will of the majority of the people. That's what democracy is.

So in one sentence you criticise her for preventing an invasion of people who (democratically) wish to be British and in the next you criticise her for supporting a dictator.

One or the other, you can't have it both ways. Personally, I think she was right on the Falklands and wrong on Pinochet. You?

I believe I can have it both ways: if the Falkland Islanders wanted to be British, what are they doing on an island within spitting distance of Argentina? They must know that at regular intervals they are going to be the cause of argument. I wonder how they feel about exacting such a price from their fellow Brits for their right to call themselves British? And of course she was wrong regarding Pinochet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll make it simpler then:

You said that Prime MInisters should do what the will of the people is (I don't agree with that, they sell an idea and see who goes with it, but that's not the point)...they don't do what the will of all the people is in every policy, they do what the will of those that voted for them is (assuming they want re-electing).

You talk of showing no respect for her funeral (fair enough) but when asked the respect her family at this time you give an example of her husband being an alcoholic as a reason for opinion on her family.

If that isn't the case then can you explain what you meant?

If the Government is not facilitating the will of the people then we are not living in a Democracy ...... and we obviously aren't.

Yes, because he was a member of that family. Sorry, still not getting your point on alcoholism, and why it 'speaks volumes' to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Government is not facilitating the will of the people then we are not living in a Democracy ...... and we obviously aren't.

Yes, because he was a member of that family. Sorry, still not getting your point on alcoholism, and why it 'speaks volumes' to you.

They did, the will of the people that voted them in - that's how democracy works, you might not like it, but that's neither here nor there.

It speaks volumes to me because alcoholism is a disease....not an excuse to disrespect someone family at the time of a funeral - do you understand that point?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I can have it both ways: if the Falkland Islanders wanted to be British, what are they doing on an island within spitting distance of Argentina?

I don't know, living where they have been for generations perhaps? The islands have never belonged to Argentina and, as such they have no claim to them. Chausey isnear England. Does that mean we can just invade whenever we like? No, because they belong to the French.

They must know that at regular intervals they are going to be the cause of argument.

So they should be forced out of their homes because Argentina wants land it has no right to?

I wonder how they feel about exacting such a price from their fellow Brits for their right to call themselves British? And of course she was wrong regarding Pinochet.

I imagine they feel honoured people cared enough. And what people seem to forget is that people join the armed forces by choice not conscription. Part of their job is to defend British territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did, the will of the people that voted them in - that's how democracy works, you might not like it, but that's neither here nor there.

It speaks volumes to me because alcoholism is a disease....not an excuse to disrespect someone family at the time of a funeral - do you understand that point?

Well, there's direct democracy and there's representative democracy ....... I'm a fan of the former, obviously.

As for whether or not alcoholism is a disease ..... the jury is still out on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there's direct democracy and there's representative democracy ....... I'm a fan of the former, obviously.

As for whether or not alcoholism is a disease ..... the jury is still out on that.

Then you can't accuse a Prime Minister of not following democracy, when we have the latter, not ther former that you'd like.

I'll stick with the AMA on alcoholism, over your view :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snapback.pnglittle_dreamer, on 11 April 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

John Cleese did an amusing TV commercial in the US, though I can't even remember the product he was selling.

I hope it was better directed than his ads over here..his efforts over the past few years have been pathetic,wooden, and unfunny.I don't think Cleese is in demand much anymore...his ads show no signs of the brilliance he radiated in Fawlty Towers or Python.

I think he had to pay for one of his divorces again. Apparently he was taken to the cleaners again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Persumably this is not a great concern since most of her diehard supporters are so old they might injure themselves in the mere attempt without even connecting. Anyways isn't that a lower class thing to do? Resort to violence.

It's the human thing to do if someone dances on your loved one's grave. How would *you* react to such a provocation? As for age, I've seen men in their sixties who could beat the crap out of a lot of fat and/or weak guys in their twenties. As for low class, throwing "death parties" is the epitome of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:passifier:

Nice One.Words achieve more than violence ever will.My opinion stands.

I was just trying to help you if you ever felt the urge to use a cemetery as a mosh pit. The mourners might not care for it when you bust a move over the deceased's corpse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A ridiculous statement.

I see. He probably should have said "communists", not "terrorists".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My answers in green:

I don't know, living where they have been for generations perhaps? If the islanders and their sheep were transported to an uninhabited island off the coast of Scotland it would stop the nonsense and they wouldn't know the difference!

The islands have never belonged to Argentina and, as such they have no claim to them. Chausey isnear England. Does that mean we can just invade whenever we like? No, because they belong to the French. That's not a very good example because Chausey is very close to the French coast and belongs to the French. It's obviously French because it's so much closer to France than England.

So they should be forced out of their homes because Argentina wants land it has no right to? I guess they see it as 'more theirs than ours' because it's so close to them. Only their Government knows why they occasionally start up some sabre-rattling over it.

I imagine they feel honoured people cared enough. Seriously? You think they feel okay with the cost in human life and the financial cost? I can't get my head around that at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If the islanders and their sheep were transported to an uninhabited island off the coast of Scotland it would stop the nonsense and they wouldn't know the difference!

Aside from the poorer land quality, leading to lower productivity and income. Not to mention the weather :P Also, since you're so big on the cost of things, how much do you think that would cost?

That's not a very good example because Chausey is very close to the French coast and belongs to the French. It's obviously French because it's so much closer to France than England.

I guess they see it as 'more theirs than ours' because it's so close to them. Only their Government knows why they occasionally start up some sabre-rattling over it.

But territory isn't divided according to how close it is. It's divided according to who made the effort to settle there. In this case, the British chose to colonize the Falklands, the Spanish didn't. Why should they be able to lay claim to islands once we've done the hard work. Especially when those islanders have no wish to be argentinian.

Seriously? You think they feel okay with the cost in human life and the financial cost? I can't get my head around that at all.

Do I think they feel okay with people doing their jobs to protect their way of life? Yes, I imagine they do.

Edited by Setton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My replies in green.

Aside from the poorer land quality, leading to lower productivity and income. Not to mention the weather :P Also, since you're so big on the cost of things, how much do you think that would cost? Well, it would be a one-off cost and wouldn't involve killing anyone. Personally, I would take a lower income if it meant I never again had to worry about my 'neighbours' invading and the ensuing loss of life on my behalf.

But territory isn't divided according to how close it is. It's divided according to who made the effort to settle there. In this case, the British chose to colonize the Falklands, the Spanish didn't. Why should they be able to lay claim to islands once we've done the hard work. Especially when those islanders have no wish to be argentinian. But the natural inclination is to feel that if something is closer to one country than another then it 'belongs' to the country it's nearest to. Think of the problems with designated fishing areas. How incensed do our fishermen get because boats come halfway around the world to take 'our' fish.

Do I think they feel okay with people doing their jobs to protect their way of life? Yes, I imagine they do. Well, I can't understand that. It seems mindbogglingly selfish to me ...... I don't know how they can sleep at night, to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you watch the video in that article?

What an idiot is Mr. Lydon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you watch the video in that article?

What an idiot is Mr. Lydon.

Do you mind if I add 'unfunny loathsome turd' to 'idiot'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mind if I add 'unfunny loathsome turd' to 'idiot'?

Feel free!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.