The Official Tony Blair Is A f***ing Arsehole Thread

Hatfull, what are you doing here? :p
The US is a representative democracy, not a democracy, true democracy is what they had in ancient Greece.
Considering that women, slaves, and some men weren't a part of it, I think today is much closer to the ideal.
I am well aware of the consequences of Communism, I do not agree with extreme politics, but it's simple if the Chinese people and Iranian people wanted to, they could over throw the regimes that opress them. However they do not want to and so these people exist, Bush and Blair are just as dangerous, there is no good vs evil in warfare, both sides are going to see the opposing leaders, regimes and countries as evil, wicked people.

I'm not a fan of any politician, but many of these problems have occured from the US interfering in other countries politics.
You should read some testimonials by people who live under terroristic regimes. It's easy for us to think "oh, they could just overthrow them if they wanted to" (I admit I sometimes feel this way myself), but you really shouldn't judge. And btw I'm talking Korea, not China ;) .
And no, Bush and Blair could never be as dangerous because they have a people to answer to. Dictators do not.
 
which ones?

Social behaviours, qualities which are in place from birth. Freud did a bit of research into this, if my memory serves me correctly.

Can't you just accept the simple fact that violence is more prevalent in males? Look around you, watch the news, read the papers. It's not a subtle issue - it's blatantly obvious.
 
Hatfull, what are you doing here? :p

Considering that women, slaves, and some men weren't a part of it, I think today is much closer to the ideal.

You should read some testimonials by people who live under terroristic regimes. It's easy for us to think "oh, they could just overthrow them if they wanted to" (I admit I sometimes feel this way myself), but you really shouldn't judge. And btw I'm talking Korea, not China ;) .
And no, Bush and Blair could never be as dangerous because they have a people to answer to. Dictators do not.


Yes, advances have been made, but Democracy in Acient Greece is considered and I have to agree is the purest form of democracy. The methods I am talking about here, how things were done, obviously it has it's flaws, like everything else.

I will read testimonials, but people have the power to bring about change. Of course it's a lot harder than just lets rage against the machine that is communism, but it can be done, if people take a stand. I'm not judging, I'm sorry, but I am not completely in the dark and I feel you are patronising me because of my age, I am simply stating what I learnt from the collapse of The Tsar in Russia in 1917 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989.

They are dangerous, they have power to slaughter millions of innocent people, Bush will never be charged for war crimes and neither will Blair, they will get away with murder. They are accountable as politicians, but it will never amount to a trial like the one that the Nazi's had to face.
 
Good question actually. But this is a Morrissey forum - you must know there are loads of women on here who like passive, gentle or effeminate men, one in particular, I would have thought.

I myself like men who have sensitivity; compassion, a love of nature, gentleness, passivity. I know lots of other women who like these kind of men, too.

i know, that many say that
then again ive been picking up goth girls and shoegazer chicks for almost 20 years now
and while 'they all say they want'
more passive guys
i know who gets the birds
EVEN IN OUR SCENE
and its not
wallflowers
and if that is true with a 'wimpy' scene like ours
then what do think regular women are after?

i mean cmon
give me a break
it is so apparent that women validate men acting out in violent ways
all the time
i really cannot believe anyone is nieve enough to think otherwise
 
i know, that many say that
then again ive been picking up goth girls and shoegazer chicks for almost 20 years now
and while 'they all say they want'
more passive guys
i know who gets the birds
EVEN IN OUR SCENE
and its not
wallflowers
and if that is true with a 'wimpy' scene like ours
then what do think regular women are after?

i mean cmon
give me a break
it is so apparent that women validate men acting out in violent ways
all the time
i really cannot believe anyone is nieve enough to think otherwise

I can only say I disagree. The majority of women take no joy from viewing violence.

Reverse the situation then. If it is true that women like violent men, then what kind of women is it that men seek?
 
I hope that was a facetious statement.

Oh dear, I'm not actually a fitness instructor; sorry to shatter your illusions. This is old news, I'm afraid.


not wholly invested in the body beautiful? so why you not thinking?!

shame on you! what do you do with your time?


why "facetious"?

(granted, my previous post was phrased in the manner of a bland, placard-waving "rage against the machine" fan, but since i know you take your opinions from your fave pop stars, i thought i'd try to communicate on your wavelength.)

the poverty of the working class is "explained" by their, supposedly, poor intellect and inherent fecklessness. "housewives" and the "traditional female role" is explained by women's, supposedly, maternal instinct and caring, "softer" "nature" and; the position of blacks - both, in the developed and underdeveloped regions of the world - is, supposedly, "explained" by their being less "developed" beings than whites.

(i'm off to bed. g'night, darling xx)
 
Whilst watching some "Most Annoying People of 2006" thing on BBC3 or 4 last night, I was struck by how true Morrissey's remark was about TB resembling Larry Grayson more and more with every passing day.

true as this may be, its VERY insulting to Larry. poor guy.
 
@ Kickstand: I was patronizing a bit, I'm sorry, not because of your age though, simply because you have such solid views and you don't seem to know that much about the subject. I'm sure you (and most others here) know a lot more than me about Tony Blair's policies for instance, which is why I haven't commented on the title of this thread, even though he strikes me as a really classy, intelligent guy (I caught a few of his apperances in Parliament on Sky, if only our politicians sounded like that! *sigh*). I'm sure this sounds like a very naive comment to you ;) .

@ Crime of the Century: As I said I agree with your magor point, but I really wouldn't base anything on Freud, his studies had many methodological faults (plus I don't recall him making any studies about these things, could be wrong).
 
I can only say I disagree. The majority of women take no joy from viewing violence.

Reverse the situation then. If it is true that women like violent men, then what kind of women is it that men seek?

I personally hate violence, however I will always defend myself, so if someone hits me, I'll hit them back, I don't like it, but I don't want to take a beating.
 
Social behaviours, qualities which are in place from birth. Freud did a bit of research into this, if my memory serves me correctly.

Can't you just accept the simple fact that violence is more prevalent in males? Look around you, watch the news, read the papers. It's not a subtle issue - it's blatantly obvious.

i, certainly, accept that officially recorded acts of violence is higher for men than for females, in the u.k. (and, i'm sure, elsewhere, too), but that wasn't your proposition.

your proposition was that men are predisposed to violence & bloodshed etc., by their sex, and that the higher rates of violent crime and warmongering, by men, is "proof" of this alleged predisposition. you're simply pointing out a correlation - not causation. i don't accept that proposition and you've offered nothing to prove the biological determinism on which your argument rests.
 
i, certainly, accept that officially recorded acts of violence is higher for men than for females, in the u.k. (and, i'm sure, elsewhere, too), but that wasn't your proposition.

your proposition was that men are predisposed to violence & bloodshed etc., by their sex, and that the higher rates of violent crime and warmongering, by men, is "proof" of this alleged predisposition. you're simply pointing out a correlation - not causation. i don't accept that proposition and you've offered nothing to prove the biological determinism on which your argument rests.


Blah, blah, blah. Correlation? Causation? You're blinding me with science now.
 
The poverty of the working-class is down to exploitation and oppression, and the same can be said for women and black people. I'm keeping things simple for you, by the way!

Night, love.


if only you could see the inconsistency of your opinions.

g'night baby, i love you. :)

p.s. you'll note that i quoted somebody who had a fair bit to say about poverty & exploitation etc., in support of the title of your thread, a few pages ago. (don't say i never give you anything, lover!) ...a guy called marx (no, not the guy that looks like dr. robert winston, off the telly, y'daft puddin'! :rolleyes:) you'll prob. find him in a book, somewhere.

i'll be dreamin' of ya xxx
 
Back
Top Bottom