Our Leader
- Thread starter Norcon
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I
imamartian
Brown's not our leader.... he's a squatter !
That says it all.!!! Go for God's sake go,
Exactly!!!
Roughcaster.
Exactly!!!
Roughcaster.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2006
- Messages
- 6,652
- Reaction score
- 290
- Country
I have a tendency to agree with Deluks
Fact is, if Brown HAD issued the nomination papers he would probably have kept his job as the Labour Party leader. But, he's now put a lot of noses out of joint by denying a vote by... well... people who rely on votes to keep their own jobs!
If I was a Labour MP who had support Brown, I don't think I would now. Add to that the fact that he is not capable of winning a general election (would you vote for him?), they'd be mad to keep him.
They need a proper Old Labour-style leader. One who looks and talks like John Prescott, doesn't lie about his policies. One who's prepared to say "Eeh, by 'eck we're going to tax the knackers off everyone but it's OK because we'll have first-rate public services". Preferably one who is prepared to punch people when they throw eggs at him, but without the borderline retardation and bullaemia (I still laugh at that). You can't have a party that promises to be the saviour of the country and the working class, AND a party that supports middle class values and low-taxation. They're mutually exclusive principles.
And most of all, you can't have a smug git who screws everyone over and then blames the Tories (after more than 11 years in power)
I think we'll see a vote of no confidence within a month. Hopefully.
If I was a Labour MP who had support Brown, I don't think I would now. Add to that the fact that he is not capable of winning a general election (would you vote for him?), they'd be mad to keep him.
They need a proper Old Labour-style leader. One who looks and talks like John Prescott, doesn't lie about his policies. One who's prepared to say "Eeh, by 'eck we're going to tax the knackers off everyone but it's OK because we'll have first-rate public services". Preferably one who is prepared to punch people when they throw eggs at him, but without the borderline retardation and bullaemia (I still laugh at that). You can't have a party that promises to be the saviour of the country and the working class, AND a party that supports middle class values and low-taxation. They're mutually exclusive principles.
And most of all, you can't have a smug git who screws everyone over and then blames the Tories (after more than 11 years in power)
I think we'll see a vote of no confidence within a month. Hopefully.
You can if the countries been so dimantled and destabilised that all the time in the world will not return it to how it was.
Short of War to reclaim what was sold off.
S
Sylvan Tieger
Interesting!!!!!!!!!!!
Surprising Statistics
ABC, MSNBC, or CNN! Interesting Facts.......address for verification included at the end.
Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes.
I promise you that you are going to be surprised... amazed at these facts! Considering what the media has been reporting since the beginning of the Iraq war. This is not so much about politics as it is about how the Media can spin something for propaganda purposes to their biased point of view.
Military Losses, 1980 thru 2007
As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:
The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
1980 ..........2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 ......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Yea r)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year )
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,21 3 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 ( Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 ( Clinton Year)
1997 ............ 817 ( Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year)
1999 ......... 1,984 ( Clinton Year)
2000 ..........1,983 ( Clinton Year)
2001 ............ 890(George W Year)
2002 ......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 ........ 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 ..........1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
2007...............899 (Geo rge W Year)
Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths
If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war!
And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our Politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report. Of course we all know that they present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. But why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?
Do you want further proof? Consider the latest census of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by Race:
European descent (white) 69.12%
Hispanic ............. ............ 12.5%
Black ............................. 12.3%
Asian ............................... 3.7%
Native American .............. 1.0%
Other............................... 2.6%
Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) 74.31%
Hispanic ......................... 10.74%
Black .............................. 9.67%
Asian .......... .................... 1.81%
Native American ............. 1.09%
Other ............................... 0.33%
I was surprised again... until it became clear to me that the point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political gain). Nothing more!!!
It's all about politics and some politicians, are now famous for turning American against American for a vote. Consider Hillary Clinton's stump speech after her Super Tuesday 'victory' stating tha t the current administration 'does not listen' to anyone and continues the war costing precious American lives. Yes I might even agree with her, but she should be made to acknowledge her own husband's administration, without having an actual war, sent more soldiers to death during his presidency, and is on record of forcing the military to release Osama when we actually had him detained at the time.
I am not suggesting that any particular political party is necessarily right. There is a lot wrong. But, I hope that during the time between now and November, that intelligent Americans can decipher the facts from the spin and the spinners from the leaders; those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, the dividers from the uniters. Over the next months let's be good listeners and see and hear who really tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice? Who spins the facts and who is genuine.
The above statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
.
Surprising Statistics
ABC, MSNBC, or CNN! Interesting Facts.......address for verification included at the end.
Whatever your politics, however you lean, however you feel about the current administration, this report should open some eyes.
I promise you that you are going to be surprised... amazed at these facts! Considering what the media has been reporting since the beginning of the Iraq war. This is not so much about politics as it is about how the Media can spin something for propaganda purposes to their biased point of view.
Military Losses, 1980 thru 2007
As tragic as the loss of any member of the US Armed Forces is, consider the following statistics:
The annual fatalities of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:
1980 ..........2,392 (Carter Year)
1981 ......... 2,380 (Reagan Year)
1984 .......... 1,999 (Reagan Yea r)
1988 .......... 1,819 (Reagan Year)
1989 .......... 1,636 (George H W Year)
1990 .......... 1,508 (George H W Year)
1991 .......... 1,787 (George H W Year )
1992 .......... 1,293 (George H W Year)
1993 .......... 1,21 3 (Clinton Year)
1994 .......... 1,075 ( Clinton Year)
1995 .......... 2,465 ( Clinton Year)
1996 .......... 2,318 ( Clinton Year)
1997 ............ 817 ( Clinton Year)
1998 .......... 2,252 ( Clinton Year)
1999 ......... 1,984 ( Clinton Year)
2000 ..........1,983 ( Clinton Year)
2001 ............ 890(George W Year)
2002 ......... 1,007 (George W Year)
2003 ........ 1,410 (George W Year)
2004 ..........1,887 (George W Year)
2005 ............. 919 (George W Year)
2006.............. 920 (George W Year)
2007...............899 (Geo rge W Year)
Clinton years (1993-2000): 14,000 deaths
George W years (2001-2006): 7,932 deaths
If you are surprised when you look at these figures, so was I. These figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Bill Clinton's presidency; when America wasn't even involved in a war!
And, I was even more shocked when I read that in 1980, during the reign of President (Nobel Peace Prize winner) Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities! I think that these figures indicate that many members of our Media and our Politicians will pick and choose the information on which they report. Of course we all know that they present only those 'facts' which support their agenda-driven reporting. But why do so many of them march in lock-step to twist the truth? Where do so many of them get their marching-orders for their agenda?
Do you want further proof? Consider the latest census of Americans. It shows the following FACTS about the distribution of American citizens, by Race:
European descent (white) 69.12%
Hispanic ............. ............ 12.5%
Black ............................. 12.3%
Asian ............................... 3.7%
Native American .............. 1.0%
Other............................... 2.6%
Now... here are the fatalities by Race; over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom:
European descent (white) 74.31%
Hispanic ......................... 10.74%
Black .............................. 9.67%
Asian .......... .................... 1.81%
Native American ............. 1.09%
Other ............................... 0.33%
I was surprised again... until it became clear to me that the point here is that our mainstream media continues to spin these figures (for political gain). Nothing more!!!
It's all about politics and some politicians, are now famous for turning American against American for a vote. Consider Hillary Clinton's stump speech after her Super Tuesday 'victory' stating tha t the current administration 'does not listen' to anyone and continues the war costing precious American lives. Yes I might even agree with her, but she should be made to acknowledge her own husband's administration, without having an actual war, sent more soldiers to death during his presidency, and is on record of forcing the military to release Osama when we actually had him detained at the time.
I am not suggesting that any particular political party is necessarily right. There is a lot wrong. But, I hope that during the time between now and November, that intelligent Americans can decipher the facts from the spin and the spinners from the leaders; those who seek even more power from those that seek justice, the dividers from the uniters. Over the next months let's be good listeners and see and hear who really tries to divide our nation; and who wants to unite our nation. Who wants to control how our money is spent and who wants our money spent the way we would spend it. Who seeks power and who seeks justice? Who spins the facts and who is genuine.
The above statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
.
No more surprised than the USA becoming the NAU
I don't know what this is supposed to be proof of.
Is the racial composition the same regardless of sex and age, or is it different for men of military age?
I see no figures for Mixed Race. Are the criteria for deciding whether people are White or Black the same in the census as they are in the casualty figures?
Are the fatalities of US Military personnel only, or does it include others?
I don't understand why a person of White European descent whose ancestors came from Britain, France, Italy or Germany is not in the same racial category as a person of White European descent whose ancestors came from Spain or Portugal. Does the US consider that Spaniards are not white? I don't understand why the figures suggest an absence of intermarriage. I don't understand why they have no figures for Arabs
What is the racial composition of US armed forces?
What is "Iraqi Freedom?" Is it a term for the military occupation of Iraq?
Most of all, I don't understand what this post has to do with Prime Minister Brown.
Me too. Fat chance.
You've selected certain statistics to quote but if you go to your source and look at figures for the total number of serving military personnel and the breakdown of the causes of death, a different picture emerges.
Deaths due to accident, homicide, illness, and suicide are all included in the total figures and with all things being equal these are likely to represent a fairly fixed fraction of the total number of personnel which has fallen substantially since 1980.
how important are the numbers? take out a percentage point here or there to suit your argument and the point he is trying to make stands up (or seems to)
his argument is based on perception and media bias..
most people argue on this basis and will offer equally flawed statistics to back up their own ill conceived and unfounded arguments.
only the deluded could suggest this is not true..
.....
i am no bush supporter and i really dislike rootin tootin politics.
i hate the lying spinning naive agenda driven media even more.
no offence meant
his argument is based on perception and media bias..
most people argue on this basis and will offer equally flawed statistics to back up their own ill conceived and unfounded arguments.
only the deluded could suggest this is not true..
.....
i am no bush supporter and i really dislike rootin tootin politics.
i hate the lying spinning naive agenda driven media even more.
no offence meant
Sponsored Links
