NJS

Oh come on AA - who do you think the Daily Mail is written for and read by? I've said before I commute to London every day and just being on the train on that line into the city generally implies a "good life" by any standards - why do so many people on it need to read a paper whose main purpose is to scapegoat minorities - what is so wrong with lives that by their so called values are perfect that they need to hate? Don't say it provides good news - it doesn't.

I thought it was because Thatcher's popularity was at a record low. By the end it was at a record high. I'd say that makes me a cynic, but then, Leazes would say it makes me naive. No I wouldn't. Her popularity had sank from when she had been elected a few years earlier [which govt doesn't, not many] but she also had no opposition - I think Michael Foot may have been Labour Leader, who was nothing but a tramp and a lunatic. Yes, the Falklands propelled her in the popularity stakes. I think the majority of people realised the Falklands had to be done, apart from the idealistic anti-war mongs. There is no way Argentina would have negotiated over the Falklands, they wanted them back and the only way it would be done was by military means. He was in the wrong age (ie media etc) to ever have a chance of being PM but he had more intelligence and principles in his little toe than you could ever dream of. such as ? He looked a fuckin tramp at the Cenotaph man. That's it - one inappropriate choice of coat in an age when image is all that counts and a man is dismissed. Pathetic. You are wrong, totally wrong. For starters, I'm just amplifying one incident, but it is significant nonetheless. If he doesn't possess the wherewithal to understand the need to dress for such occasions in the appropriate manner, then holding the office of Prime Minister is totally unsuitable to him. Whatever fancy opinions he has, the PM of Great Britain has a certain dignity to uphold and dressing like a tramp on such an occasion is a complete non starter. I can see you have no standards. I do have standards - a bloke in his 70s on a cold november day can wear whatever keeps him warm as far as I'm concerned. I mentioned era deliberately - Lloyd George was a womanising alcoholic, as were Churchill and most PMs from the 19th century but in those days there were no tabloids and no idiots like you who think a coat makes a man. "Fancy opinions" = principles.

If people read bullshit like that and take it seriously then the dismissal of BNP supporters as racist fuckwits is pretty accurate. If thats your point of view NJS then thats great. I still think its dangerous for anybody to totally dismiss everything out of hand just because it comes from a right wing perspective tho. If thats the case then you're as blinkered (LM would say brainwashed) as the 'fuckwits' you porport to attack. I don't dismiss it because it's written by a cunt in a cunt's paper intended for cunts to read - as I said previously I dismiss it because of its unproven sources, fantasy conclusions and undercurrent of recism typical of the bitch.

If people read bullshit like that and take it seriously then the dismissal of BNP supporters as racist fuckwits is pretty accurate.

I thought it was because Thatcher's popularity was at a record low. By the end it was at a record high. I'd say that makes me a cynic, but then, Leazes would say it makes me naive. No I wouldn't. Her popularity had sank from when she had been elected a few years earlier [which govt doesn't, not many] but she also had no opposition - I think Michael Foot may have been Labour Leader, who was nothing but a tramp and a lunatic. Yes, the Falklands propelled her in the popularity stakes. I think the majority of people realised the Falklands had to be done, apart from the idealistic anti-war mongs. There is no way Argentina would have negotiated over the Falklands, they wanted them back and the only way it would be done was by military means. He was in the wrong age (ie media etc) to ever have a chance of being PM but he had more intelligence and principles in his little toe than you could ever dream of. such as ? He looked a fuckin tramp at the Cenotaph man. That's it - one inappropriate choice of coat in an age when image is all that counts and a man is dismissed. Pathetic.

I thought it was because Thatcher's popularity was at a record low. By the end it was at a record high. I'd say that makes me a cynic, but then, Leazes would say it makes me naive. No I wouldn't. Her popularity had sank from when she had been elected a few years earlier [which govt doesn't, not many] but she also had no opposition - I think Michael Foot may have been Labour Leader, who was nothing but a tramp and a lunatic. Yes, the Falklands propelled her in the popularity stakes. I think the majority of people realised the Falklands had to be done, apart from the idealistic anti-war mongs. There is no way Argentina would have negotiated over the Falklands, they wanted them back and the only way it would be done was by military means. He was in the wrong age (ie media etc) to ever have a chance of being PM but he had more intelligence and principles in his little toe than you could ever dream of.

Not really - then again my political views were pretty much already formed by thetime I went there - socialism from my Mam (you know that pesky thinking the best of people view you dislike so much) and harder ideas formed by growing up in the north east in th 70s/early 80s and seeing what the bitch was doing. In fact Thatcher had an infintely greater influence on my political views than any University ever could - and nothing that's happend to me or the country in the subsequent years has changed that to any great degree. how do you know I don't have some socialist views ? I wouldn't consider myself aligned to any particular party to be honest. I would presume you do (most "decent" people do) - I think you've mentioned before support for public transport. What you don't have (imo) is a view based on a community of all different kinds of people working together for the common good of all.

AA - the supposition that mass immigration was a deliberate policy meant to increase multicultarism is speculative bollocks - thats what we're dismissing. Even if one gobshite minister said that, do you really think Blair sat down in 97 and said "What this country really needs is more third world immigrants which of course everyone will welcome"? I'd also guess the "3 million" is shite - its certainly is from a net point of view and will no doubt include Europeans and other "acceptable" races.

Not really - then again my political views were pretty much already formed by thetime I went there - socialism from my Mam (you know that pesky thinking the best of people view you dislike so much) and harder ideas formed by growing up in the north east in th 70s/early 80s and seeing what the bitch was doing. In fact Thatcher had an infintely greater influence on my political views than any University ever could - and nothing that's happend to me or the country in the subsequent years has changed that to any great degree.

sitting/standing in a classroom and lecturing is experiencing the real thing ie human nature ? Not what I said or meant as you well know. I was simply pointing out that you have a go at people for commenting about things they haven't experienced yet you seem to think you're qualified in someway to comment on what goes on at university. Not difficult to see the flaw in that logic. OK I can accept your point of view. But what I say is based on what they say, logically it tells you that university is teaching them idealogical bullshit, politically speaking. I did Engineering at University and didn't attend a single political meeting or event. How does that fit into your "knowledge"?

She's also an anti-science religious fuckwit. I'd have had her jailed for her part in the MMR scare.

The "outrageous" article on the Somalian on the BBC mentions the kids are Danish citizens so have a right to reside and be educated here which is the base issue - would you like to see the Mother deported and the kids left alone or deport them to a country they might not have lived in before?

Should have left it to the Yanks - the independent deterrent was always shite - there are many countries in Europe that weren't invaded who had no deterrent apart from the general NATO umbrella. it was enough wasn't it ? For whom? Hungary and Checkoslovakia are hardly Italy and Spain are they?

I don't think its nice - I just think its a waste of time , effort and money for this country tryiing to sort out the shit. you gotta defend yourself from the bad guys, its just human nature. You don't understand this do you. So what did Korea, Suez, Vietnam, Malaysia, Kenya and Iraq (Twice) have to do with defending us from the bad guys? So you think we should just let them do as they like ? LIke Cuba, which you missed out. Iraq has been discussed, I still can't believe people think we should have allowed Iraq to carry on as they were going under Saddam. I listed those which specifically involved the UK which were a waste of time. Saddam was okay when he was invading Iran.

It would have been less hassle to fly the Islanders to the UK and left it to the Argies. There are vast tracts of the old empire that have been given up in the last century. There is precedent by the way for an eviction/abandonment - - that's what we did with Diego Garcia - of course that was a favour for the Yanks so it was okay.

Should have left it to the Yanks - the independent deterrent was always shite - there are many countries in Europe that weren't invaded who had no deterrent apart from the general NATO umbrella.

I don't think its nice - I just think its a waste of time , effort and money for this country tryiing to sort out the shit. you gotta defend yourself from the bad guys, its just human nature. You don't understand this do you. So what did Korea, Suez, Vietnam, Malaysia, Kenya and Iraq (Twice) have to do with defending us from the bad guys?

I don't think its nice - I just think its a waste of time , effort and money for this country tryiing to sort out the shit.

After WWII I'd imagine not spending obscene amounts on defence would have meant having an economy as strong as say Germany or Japan. what utter tosh. What have we gained frrm 60 years of armed forces spending?

After WWII I'd imagine not spending obscene amounts on defence would have meant having an economy as strong as say Germany or Japan.

Interesting you put so much on perception of being British counting for so much - does that apply to Muslims as well then? I've said before that all the military campaigns since WWII have been bollocks - sorry for not being blinded by the flag.

I remember her "Rejoice at that news" (on victory) - I also remember the flag waving on the way out and the way back - theres no shame in pointing out how war has always been glorified in this country and that one was particularly so. Good - complete waste of money as I've said previously.

She'd changed the rules a couple of years before that to downgrade their citizenship - it was never about people - it was abour recepturing the empire spirit and seeing human sheep waving union jacks.

She deliberately withdrew the Endurance/Endeavour (can't remember which) to send a nice little hint. In 78 they sabre rattled and Callahan sent a nuke sub and they backed down straight away. Whatever the cunt was, she was an opportunist who saw the chance. No doubt we'll get ultra-patriitoic bollocks in this thread about how it was oh so glorious. The bitch deliberately broke her rules of engagement to avoid having to sign the american peace deal and so she could "rejoice" in war.

Don't know about now but if they'd been invaded 12 months later we'd have been fucked due to planned cuts.