Forum menu
For the hard of over-thinking, asking someone to calm down
FTFY
I really hope this is entirely a joke...
Just because you hope it won't make it so. I'm certain Z-11 means every word of what he says.
A bit of banter that Labour are going to try and use to manufacture an issue. The best they can hope for these days is momentarily distracting everyone from the fact that they have no credible policies or politicians left.
Oh, you're "certain" are you nickf? well, thats reassuring 🙄 maybe you really do need to MTFU!
I think Molgrips has it, but to add, Cameron either intended it to be an offensive slap down or he's an incompentant debater who lost his control of the situation, either way he's made an error of judgement.
Does it matter? Well as long has he spends a bit longer thinking about stuff when it comes to the really important decisions, probably not.
Z-11, I'm certain that you were trying to be offensive. I'm certain that you're talking about something you know nothing about: respect for women. I'm certain you take great pains to display a right-wing stance on every occasion.
Yep, I'm certain that you're a tosser. But hey, MTFU, just get over it.
repect for women
Mummy issues I reckon. The constant ad-hominem attacks point to a Freudian response to either rejection or over-familiarity with Mummy. I'd wonder which it was if I gave a shit.
I'm glad you're so certain of so many things nickf! Why, its almost as if you're inside my head, its like watching [i]Being John Malkovich[/i] again
I'm also glad you're so comfortable that your wife chose not to take your name, that you're so sensitive over the issue (is there an emoticon for emasculated?)
Deadlydarcy - indeed, mummy issues, just like you say - I even sit down when I wee!
- I mean, its not like the Tory party have ever given us a woman leader or Prime Minister,
......... Thatcher is woman ?? 😯
Seems to me the real point here is that under very moderate pressure the chinless one scored a massive own goal. Very poor IMHO
It demonstrates the PM to be the smug, patronising and sexist git we all knew him to be
Not true at all.
Before yesterday I only thought he was a smug, patronising git. I didn't realise he was sexist.
Still though, Dave has owned Labour at PMQs for quite some time.
Still though, Dave has owned Labour at PMQs for quite some time.
And when someone corrects him on a [i]point of fact[/i], he resorts to a sexist patronising put-down. Yeah, real stylish debating.
It would probably have been more stylish for Labour to put their heads together and present their facts in a reasoned manner when the speaker gave them the opportunity.
D-D
perhaps if she wanted to correct him on a fact, then she should have raised a point of order with the speaker, as per the proper debating rules of the house, rather than acting like an overexcited fishwife?
Then there would have been no need for the put down! If Labour want the PM to follow the finer rules of etiquette, then perhaps they should show due respect themselves?
For the hard of over-thinking
Define over-thinking. Should I not care about offending others, for example?
Cameron either intended it to be an offensive slap down or he's an incompentant debater who lost his control of the situation, either way he's made an error of judgement
Yep, and the former is far from professional which is worrying in a world leader, no?
More worrying than telling lies to start a war, or selling off a pile of gold at a terrible price?
Shandy - MemberMore worrying than telling lies to start a war, or selling off a pile of gold at a terrible price?
Classic evasion. Just what has that to do with Cameron being a thick sexist plonker?
~and on the war front - just what do you think is happening in Libya?
More worrying than telling lies to start a war, or selling off a pile of gold at a terrible price?
Both those things are more complicated than you suggest of course. As TJ says the question is whether or not Cameron is a sexist git.
and on the war front - just what do you think is happening in Libya?
go on illuminate us, what lies are being told about the situation in Libya?
and then tell us what is the truth
Big and daft. ~That we are going in to protect civilians and that we are obeying a un resolution. Both are clearly lies and we and others are in clear breach of the UN resolution.
Bang on the money TJ - I heard Its all part of a global conspiracy by the new world order (Bilderbergers, oil companies, [s]reptilians[/s] illuminati and the Disney corporation) 🙄
Libya - we have Hague warning us that we're "in for the long haul"; anyone think to ask the British people whether we wanted this? Given the fact that Labour was ejected as much for the Iraq/Afghanistan debacles as for economic failure, you'd have thought that the Conservatives would have thought twice.
We have Putin - [i]Putin[/i], ferchrissakes! - taking us to task on morality. "They said they didn't want to kill Gaddafi. Now some officials say, yes, we are trying to kill Gaddafi. Who permitted this, was there any trial? Who took on the right to execute this man, no matter who he is?"
Is TJ still ignoring me?
We have Putin - Putin, ferchrissakes! - taking us to task on morality.
No, you have Putin using the situation to try and make us look bad.
No, you have Putin using the situation to try and make us look bad.
To be fair, he's not having to try that hard, is he?
That we are going in to protect civilians and that we are obeying a un resolution. Both are clearly lies and we and others are in clear breach of the UN resolution.
so why are we going in? what is the truth?
please list the breeches of the UN resolution that you state are occuring
Does bombing Gaddaffis compound count as protecting civilians? Sending in military advisors - clear breach. Arming the rebels. Not stopping the rebels when they killcivilians.
Why are we going in - to depose Gadaffi and we are acting air support for the rebels. Clearly partisan support.
Does bombing Gaddaffis compound count as protecting civilians?
Arguably, yes.
TJ dont bite and goo off topic
Even with file blocker you can still see Z-11 trademark bitter ad hominem honestly folks better to not bite as he has no point to make and he just feeds off your reaction. Non reaction gets to him more.
I am told he still posts up things for me despite knowing I cannot see them - anyone else want the file blocker link?...can you resist this time?
OT it is an own goal he lost his temper and he was patronising towards her and it does taint him with sexism. The line about it being humour is plausible - I beleiev Bernard Manning uses that defence - but wont fool many people.
I suspect we will see more over time
Junky - I'm not particuarly bothered if you can or cannot read my posts, the fact that you'd go to such extremes just because you've still got your lip firmly out over the whole name issue [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cuts-union-knee-jerk-response-or-last-line-of-defence-against-the-torries/page/5#post-1807611 ](For details see here)[/url] shows far, far more about you than it does about me, and means that I'm still here laughing over it, while you're sulking and trying to repeatedly make an issue and comment on it, like a petulent teenager slamming doors to show how upset he is - methinks you doth protest too much, dear 😈
Guy needs his P45.
I am in the "ignore Zulu" camp as well.
He never adds anything to the debate and just makes snide attacks on folk - see his post above about me.
Its the best way of dealing with him - don't give him the attention he craves.
he did again didnt he despite the obvious goading 🙄
See he cant help himself seriously ignore him and watch him get more desperate I bet he would even create a new account he needs the attention/reaction
'Course you are TJ!
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/trophy-hunters-red-stag-content/page/3
🙄
Now, back to the subject - lets get this straight, so Cameron is a sexist because he put up pictures of skimpily clad sportswomen in the houses of Parliament, yes?
So were the original TV ads sexist?
Does bombing Gaddaffis compound count as protecting civilians?
depends if his command and control bunker is in there I suppose
Sending in military advisors - clear breach. Arming the rebels. Not stopping the rebels when they killcivilians.
but it's not that easy is it. You could make a good argument that the proper training of the rebels would significantly reduce civilian casaulties as the "beruit unload" tactics employed by the rebels in built up areas must be causing significant numbers.
the deployment of communications specialists would enable aid to be sent to the right places
the deployment of fire control teams would stop the indiscriminate use of direct and indirect large calibre weapons
etc etc
if they hadn't gone in they would have had Gadafi clearing towns house by house all on 24 hour rolling news
I think the UK government was pushed into this because we are one of the few countries with "deployable" forces. Because they were pushed the "moment" was lost. Once they took the first step they were locked in to the long drawn out mess have now
I don't think there is a right answer to this, any path would have had intended and unintended consequences.
It's a shame there isn't any real debate about the issues and ideas on proper courses of action for what next, instead we have people picking on a phrase to justify "what they already knew" in a vacuous point scoring exercise. The air time given to this should have been given to debate about the strategic options and how to get to a sustainable future for Libya, or is that too hard?
[quote=Steve Hughes]Nothing happens when you're offended
That's just wrong. and besides, he said this on a Michael Macintyre show, so, even less credibility.
rather than acting like an overexcited fishwife?
Oooh you were doing so well up to this point. It looked just plausible, but this line just over-egged it a bit. But well done nevertheless.
So were the original TV ads sexist?
No, cos he was talking to his wife, which is different. Patronising, yes, sexist probably not.
Personally I think the big error in all this is in Cameron thinking that quoting Michael winner could be anything other than a huge error of judgement unless preceded by ".... and this is how you can sound like a complete arse"....
Never mind that, who's the floozy behind Ed's left shoulder with her buttons undone?
[img] http://www.parliament.uk/ImageVault/Images/conversionFormatType_WebSafe/id_8276/ImageVaultHandler.aspx [/img]
/Googles labour mp cleavage.
Ah from Wigan..
/Google images Lisa Nandy
/Clicks on a promising image.
"The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later."
The server?
http://www.lisanandy.co.uk
The official website for Lisa Nandy, Labour MP for Wigan 🙂