Thursday, November 30, 2006

A Message From The Shadow Foreign Secretary

Hello, my name is William or rather Wiilliam Hague as I have been paid £600,000 by Nintendo to legally change my name to help promote the release on 8th December of the company's latest videogames console, the Wii.
With its revolutionary new remote controller, the Wii will change the way we all play videogames. I have already reserved a Wii with the game Wii Sports for my wife Ffion and I to enjoy over Christmas, have you? If not, then I suggest that you camp outside your nearest retailer that sells the Wii if wish to avoid disappointment this festive season.
DISCLAIMER: Not a real endorsement!

Reasons Why Fluffy Helen Is Evil Part Seven

"The tenant who moved out on Saturday (the other housemate in this house, Leanne) turned up with her stepdad. Only what Sam didn’t realise was that the stepdad was waiting around the corner, ready to barge in and start threatening him. Harsh words were spoken and I had to call the police. >.<>.<"
What a hypocrite considering what she has done to others.
"Amusingly I have been accused of stalking by my ex-husband, whose variations on his university email address were all picked up and his three facebook accounts were found and automatically added to my profile."
I must admit I was surprised to learn that "Stalin in Drag" had had a husband at her young age (she turns 23 on February 20), but her former husband's allegations are backed up by my own experiences of being harassed by this psychotic dwarf. My sympathies go out to the poor man.

Stone Cold Top Cat - A Correction

Yesterday, I posted that the deputy leader of the Conservatives' Assembly representatives; David T. C. Davies flipped the bird at the Presiding Officer Baron Elis-Thomas in the chamber. Actually he flipped three birds simultaneously!
The man in the picture (courtesy of Guido Fawkes' blog) flipping the bird is the Liberal Democrat AM Mick Bates (sitting to the left of Mr. Davies), though he claims that it was not directed at the Presiding Officer.
A Welsh Assembly member apologised today after his rude hand gesture was captured on film and posted on the internet. Liberal Democrat AM Mick Bates was seen holding up his middle finger during a debate in the Assembly chamber yesterday.
A video of the incident appeared on the Guido Fawkes blog, accusing Mr Bates of directing the gesture at Assembly Presiding Officer Lord Elis-Thomas. A Lib Dem spokesman said Mr Bates, the AM for Montgomeryshire, was in fact engaging in some "light-hearted banter" with Plaid Cymru AM Rhodri Glyn Thomas.
In a statement Mr Bates said: "My gesture was not directed to the Presiding Officer, for whom I have enormous respect and affection. "I was showing Rhodri Glyn Thomas which finger he should use to operate the Assembly’s modern push-button voting system. "If anyone has taken offence then of course I apologise for that."

No To Sharia

I do not have a problem with Muslims, but as a British Christian (?) I do have a problem with a religious legal system that permits stoning people to death, amputating thieves' hands, hangings and beheadings being introduced to a predominately non-Islamic country. One only has to look at the chaos and tension created by the presence of two separate legal systems (secular and religious) in Islamic nations such as Pakistan and Indonesia to know that it is neither workable nor desirable in Britain. Muslims living in this country must realise that they have to respect the traditions, customs and conventions of our land and not impose institutions upon us that are contrary to our society, just as non-Muslims are expected to respect the culture of Islamic states like Saudi Arabia. If there some Muslims that find this state of affairs unacceptable, then they should leave Britain for a country more suitable for their tastes as soon as possible.

Quote of the Day 30.11.2006

"Tough on Liberty, tough on the causes of Liberty" - ContraTory on New Labour

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Stone Cold Top Cat

I have just seen a video on Guido Fawkes' blog that appears to show one of my favourite Conservative MPs/AMs David T. C. Davies aka Top Cat flipping the bird to the Assembly's Presiding Officer Baron Elis-Thomas. I cannot blame him considering that Baron Elis-Thomas (like Gordon Brown) has a talent for alienating his colleagues.

Borat blamed for Pammie split

Borat has been accused of splitting up Kid Rock and Pamela Anderson because of her part in his movie.
In the film, the spoof journalist goes to the US on a mission to marry the Baywatch star.
During a private screening in her home, Kid (real name Bob Richie) allegedly lost it when he saw Borat make a move on his wife.
A friend of the rocker said: "It was the first time Bob had seen the movie, and he didn't like it.
"Bob started screaming at Pam, saying she had humiliated herself and telling her, 'How could you do that movie?' in front of everybody. It was embarrassing.
"Pam thought he could have a sense of humour about the movie. She was in on the gag from the very beginning and loved doing the movie. And on the eve of what was supposed to be a very positive thing, he made it an awful night."
He added: "Ever since that night it has been icicles between them. Bob is just a very unhappy and angry man. Pam is very disenchanted and sad."
Kid, 35, and Pamela, 39, wed on a yacht in St Tropez late July, following an on-again, off-again relationship that began as early as 2000.
She was reported to have suffered a miscarriage recently and even vowed to try again for a baby with Kid. She has two sons by rocker Tommy Lee.
Pamela's friend said: "There are reasons why she never married him before.
"Those reasons disappeared while they were together on a boat in St Tropez but she knows now that they never went away.
"The reality is he is an angry man. It has been a tough few weeks for her.
"Now she has taken her kids and moved out of her Malibu home. Pam is very happy to not be in the same house with so much passive aggressive hostility in it."
Considering the vast number of embarrassing episodes Pamela Anderson has been involved in during her life, starring in the Borat film is a non-event. Bob Richie truly acts like a child and he needs to start growing up fast.

Quotes of the Day 29.11.2006

"The beautiful thing about capitalism is that it is the only system that allows the individual to control his or her destiny. If you are poor and talented under a capitalist system, there is nothing holding you back. If you are poor and are willing to work hard, you can reach the top. It isn't just footballers and Alan Sugar that benefit, but anyone who applies themselves can reach the top." - reactionary snob
''This means that I believe that free-market capitalism is not only economically the most efficient system, but also that it is the only morally correct system, in that it allows individuals to control their own destiny and, as such, is the only system that allows true freedom'' - Devil's Kitchen

Here Wii Go!

On December 8, the Japanese company Nintendo releases its latest videogames system, called Wii, in Britain. While its rivals Sony and Microsoft have opted to release their latest machines (the Play Station 3 and Xbox 360 respectively) with evermore-impressive visual capabilities, Nintendo prides itself on being innovative and has instead chosen to try to redefine the way that ‘Wii’ play games. This approach is symbolised by Wii’s much-touted remote control-style pad that Nintendo hopes will mirror the same success of the analogue control stick from one of Wii’s predecessors, the Nintendo 64. Yet there is another less published feature of Wii that is just as exciting to use.
The Mii Channel allows each gamer to create virtual avatars of themselves, real and fictional personalities from James Bond to Wii-lliam Hague. These avatars can then be used in some games such as Wii Sports that will be bundled with Wii itself. Wii Sports features tennis, golf, baseball, ten-pin bowling and most interestingly of all, boxing! For example, a gamer could create digital versions of Gordon Brown and David Cameron on the Mii Channel and then insert both of them into the boxing ring to recreate the 1974 Rumble in the Jungle fight with Brown in the role of George Foreman and Dave as Muhammad Ali.
The arrogant “Lord Gord” would use his big clunking fists to try to KO our plucky hero, but in spite of the pummelling he is dishing out to Dave, Brown only manages to wear himself out. Fatigued by his failure to finish off his opponent, Brown is caught off-guard by the resilient Dave’s devastating counterattack and is quickly floored by a lethal combination. When Brown is unable to pick himself up off the canvas before the end of the referee’s count, David Cameron is declared the winner!

Hotrod Has Cancer

It maybe old news, but I would like to wish actor and prowrestler Rowdy Roddy Piper every success in his fight against Hodgkin’s lymphoma (also known as Hodgkin's disease) a form of cancer. According to WWE.Com "Radiation therapy is used to treat Hodgkin’s lymphoma; it is an extremely successful procedure, so the prognosis is very good for Piper."

Monday, November 27, 2006

Quote of the Day 27.11.2006

"Labour lost a lot of support to the Socialist Party, a far right anti-immigration party won nine seats despite immigration being less of a big deal than four years ago" - Labour spin doctor Don Paskini on the recent Dutch General Election
The Dutch Socialist Party is a far right organisation? With nonsense like that, it is no wonder that Master Paskini is one of the worst British bloggers.

Urge To Kill: Rising

It seems that the evil Stalinist Jew-hater "Fluffy" Helen Watters signed up my email address to the British National Party's news update mailing list! This is just typical of her, as she has been defaming me for almost three years. How petty and vindictive!
Both Watters and the BNP are scum!

Royal Snail Mail

Does it really take TEN days for a letter to reach me over such a short distance? How could a letter I sent to Cardiff last month take SIX days to reach its destination despite having TWO first class stamps on the envelope? This slow and shoddy service is unacceptable and has put me a foul mood. The case in favour of privatising Royal Mail is growing stronger by the day.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Why We Were Right To Liberate Iraq

The following piece was written by Ghost Dog 644 on the GameFAQs War on Terrorism Message Board during 2003. As such, some of the arguments made were found wanting in the period since it was written (nor do I agree with everything the author wrote), yet it still remains remarkably relevant and accurate about the background to the Third Gulf War and is the most powerful case made in favour of the liberation of Iraq.
First of all, let me just say that I’m anti-war and pro-common sense, I’m neither Republican nor Democrat (everyone in politics is all the same), and if you ask me who was my favourite president in the last 3 decades, I’d probably say Clinton.
Going back to me saying I’m anti-war, I’m anti-war to an extent. I do realize that there are instances where action must be taken. I strongly believe that this is one of those instances. So here in this topic, I will attempt to explain why I hold my position and why I am "getting sick and tired" of anti-war protestors and the extreme liberalism within the movement.
"Bush is attacking Iraq to get oil."
This is the biggest myth surrounding the entire campaign. People would be surprised to learn that only 2.2% of the oil we consume comes from Iraq. In fact, Middle East nations only provide about 11.5% total of the oil we consume. Indeed, there are analysts who say that within the next decade we will end up importing more from Middle Eastern countries. If that were the case, then we would’ve attacked Saudi Arabia as they give us 7.9%. Hell, if it were REALLY all about oil, Canada would be a conquered nation by now as we import the most oil from them (9.9%). Or how about conquer Mexico? Mexico gives us 7.8% of our oil, just below Saudi Arabia. 6 other nations exported more oil to us than Iraq did in 2002. If this government is an "oil-hungry-corrupt-imperialistic" government, why have we not attacked those nations?
Although we import very little from Iraq, there is no denying that Iraq has plenty of oil. Last I remember they are the 2nd biggest exporter of oil in the world. So many will still cling to the false argument that this is all about oil. This is what people don’t understand, the main reason the U.S. imports its oil in a big spread of different nations, is because it is a strategic structure. The government isn’t stupid; they realize that if we as a country depend heavily on one nation for our oil, it would be devastating if something negative happened within that nation that would prevent oil importing. Think of the importation of oil as a mutual fund. It has to be diversified because putting your eggs in one basket is suicide. It is quite obvious why we import more oil from Canada than any other country, because obviously we know that they are just as stable as we are and can keep a consistent flow as opposed to South America and the Middle East.
"Bush is attacking Iraq to force them to give us their oil and get rich during the reconstruction."
Another tired old mythical argument. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deployment of troops costs $9-13 billion. Thereafter, to maintain the war on Iraq, it will cost $6-9 billion per month. Returning the forces to the U.S. will cost an estimated $5-7 billion. Temporary occupation will cost another $1-4 billion per month after the war ends. This doesn’t even take into account the initial and continuing costs of setting up a new government or the amount of military equipment lost. Nor does it take into account the billions lost on tighter national security (NYC requires $5 million per week!). So how the hell is the U.S. getting rich in all of this exactly? Lastly and most importantly, this does not even take into account the number of lives that could be lost.
Let us also not forget, that we WILL NOT be the only ones reconstructing Iraq after the war. Spain, Britain, and the other 43 countries that have signed on to support this war will also be lending a hand. There is no doubt that Germany, France, China, and Russia will also definitely jump in once we do the dirty work for them. Hell, France is already saying they’re going to veto in letting the U.S. have anything to do with Iraq reconstruction! In addition, the UN will be keeping a close watch, as they will be sending in their workers for humanitarian purposes and just 2 days ago the LA Times reported that the UN will be GAINING CONTROL of the oil wells in Iraq after the war and all the profits from it. A lot of people seem to think that we’re going to just cakewalk the war, create a puppet government, get the oil, and get rich. If we look at the numbers constructively, that reasoning makes absolutely no sense.
Assuming that Bush is a maniac who doesn’t care about the lives of our troops and Iraqi citizens and we’re really in it so we can get oil and he can get revenge for his daddy, assuming this is all true as stupid as that may sound. As I’ve stated in my first argument, strategically, it would be suicide to depend on one territory for oil, especially such a dangerous and volatile territory. It would be stupid on our part to get rid of our ties with Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and the 3 other nations we imported more from than Iraq now that we “control” Iraq and can get “free oil as our spoils.” And again, this is just not possible due to the amount of other countries that will be either directly monitoring or directly aiding with the reconstruction. And remember that politically, Bush and Blair have a lot to loose on this campaign. If they half-ass their aid in the reconstruction and for some magical reason we are able to abuse Iraqi oil for our own purposes without any of the other countries noticing and the Iraqi territory becomes one big mess… then Bush will surely loose the next election and go down in history as one of the most scandalous leaders and Blair will be exiled from Britain for being “America’s poodle.” Not only that, but if the territory does become one big mess, how the hell are we going to keep importing oil from it? So in essence, EVEN IF we assume that this is about getting rich and oil, the amount we reap will end up going back to keeping a stable government anyway. Once the war is all said and done, as Bush and Blair promised, the oil will go back to the people that own it, the Iraqis.
"France, Russia, China, and Germany should be commended for standing up against the U.S."
This one really sickens me and it really proves the hypocrisy of it all. France will loose an estimated $6-9 billion in oil contracts. Russia and Germany have similar contracts to a lesser extent with Iraq. This is why these countries refused to take ANY FORM of military action because they have the most to loose. Not only would they loose money by liberating Iraq and reconstructing it, but they would also loose their precious oil discount contracts. They’re not anti-war because they’re a "peace-loving-nation." They’re not anti-war because they just love the UN so much and need their approval. They’re not anti-war because they care about the lives lost. False, false, and false. What’s really disgusting is that these are the same countries protestors’ praise, the same protestors who claim that the U.S. is going in because it’s "all about the oil."
Now, I did not mention China. Communist China is against us, big surprise there. Why China and their sweatshops, yes, China is really against war because they care oh so much about human lives, right...
"No one supports the U.S., this is a unilateral pre-emptive move to war."
Bush Sr. had 30 countries with him when he attacked Iraq. Bush Jr. has 45. I don’t need to say much else.
"I would support the war if we had UN approval. It’s hypocritical of us to invade a country for disobeying the UN by disobeying the UN ourselves."
Why do we need approval for something that the UN approved already? The wording of the infamous 1441 was really very "loose." It had to be in order for France, Russia, and Germany to sign on it because any explicit use of the word "immediate military action," the 3 would’ve trounced it because of their oil contracts. So instead, they replaced it with "severe consequences." It is only now that the U.S. is finally saying that, "Oh, that means military action." Where as the countries against military action is saying, "No, it doesn’t." Although France, Russia, and Germany can’t say exactly what the hell "severe consequences" means. So instead they took another route and started saying, "Well, we should only do that if Iraq is not cooperating, but Iraq is cooperating." BS, BS, and BS!
Listen all you anti-war folks out there. Saddam has had 12 friggin’ years to disarm. 17 resolutions after, how the hell are we still "investigating"? During that time he kicked inspectors out, then lately we get interviews of him saying, "Well, I did have WoMD when I wasn’t supposed to have them, but they’re all gone now." Then we find out he has missiles he’s not supposed to have and it’s just, "Oh, it’s all just an accident." This coming from Saddam and the UN believes it! Ridiculous. Everyone signed a trillion resolutions and gave deadline after deadline... "Oh, but 12 years after they’re cooperating, so c’mon, let’s give ‘em another 2 months." How about giving them another 2 months after that, and another 2 months after that, and another 2 months after that? I give Bush credit for saying, "The BS stops here," and then finally having the gonads to do something about it. The UN wasn’t obeying the UN resolutions; it is as simple as that.
"Clinton would’ve done a better job in diplomacy."
Yeah, he would’ve done EXACTLY what Bush is doing now. You can look at past speeches of Clinton during his term and all of his comments literally parallel everything Bush is saying now, especially because it was a time when Iraq had kicked the inspectors out. It is unfortunate that Clinton has gone the "partisan" route and denounced what Bush is saying and doing when his "thoughts" on it mirrored Bush’s during his Presidency. I’m not even going to bother quoting Clinton because a lot of newspapers and news talk radio shows have caught on the hypocrisy already.
"We’re going to bomb the hell out of Iraq and kill lots of innocent people."
Please show me a war that was won without collateral damage… You can’t… Collateral damage is inevitable. The U.S. is doing EVERYTHING in its technological power to avoid such casualties. This is one of the main reasons why before the "shock and awe" campaign we saw today, surgical strikes aimed at assassinating Saddam were performed "outside of the original plan." We saw an opportunity to eliminate the main problem quickly and we took it. If Saddam were truly dead, it would be equivalent to cutting off the head of the snake. The war would go along much quicker and much smoother in essence equalling into less violence. The problem I believe is that when people think bombs, they see pictures of warplanes in the 50s just randomly dropping bombs. This is NOT what is happening, everything that has been targeted are military locations. The accuracy of our military technology has become so precise that it borders on the ridiculous. We ARE NOT just dropping bombs all over Baghdad and other cities just for the hell of dropping bombs. We know what is being hit and what needs to be hit. Look at the videos, bombs are going off and it looks like hell, but electricity is still on and non-military targets are all still pretty much intact. We are not here to DESTROY a nation, we are here to destroy an evil regime and liberate an entire country.
"We have no proof that they have WoMD."
How many missiles have been fired at Kuwait so far that Saddam SWORE had all been destroyed? The way the investigations by the UN were being met by Saddam was ludicrous. Leaving out the fact that he once kicked the investigators out, when the investigators were supposedly conducting their investigations, Iraqi officials were heavily monitoring them. I don’t remember who said it, it might’ve been Conan O’Brien or Jon Stewart, but basically this is how they jokingly saw the investigations. If your mom goes into your room and says, "I’m going to come back here in 4 months and I’m going to look for weed in your room. I better not find any or your are in deep trouble." That is essentially how the investigations were going. Wherever the investigators were going to go next, Iraqi officials had to be asked ahead of time. Whomever they interviewed, Iraqi officials had to be there. And even in the remaining days when Iraqi officials finally conceded to giving the UN "private" interviews with scientists, there were reports coming back saying the interviews were being tapped!
Ask yourself this; does Iraq look like a country disarming? It sure as hell doesn’t, unless you’re as blind as Blix is. We are talking about Saddam here, did you hear me? Saddam! The man has no credibility and there is no doubt in my mind that there was no way in hell that we would ever be able to conduct a REAL investigation in Iraq with him in power. I’m not even going to mention a lot of "coincidental" evidence that we intercepted. In fact, this is one of our greatest fears right now. That Baghdad is one big trap that once our forces come in Saddam will unleash his bio/chem. weapons on our men and women as a last resort (if he’s even still alive).
Let’s live in fantasyland and assume that Saddam doesn’t have WoMDs. With the strategy of appeasement the UN was giving Saddam, there is absolutely, positively no doubt in my mind that within the next few years Saddam would’ve come to a point where he would obtain such technology and you sure as hell better believe he’ll sell it to terrorists and aid terrorists in harming our land and our allies. Hell, this is the same bastard who gives Palestinian suicide bombers’ families $210,000. You’d have to be pretty stupid and naïve to think that a man like Saddam who utterly detests the U.S. hasn’t in fact already in some way aided and harboured terrorists against America, not just Israel, Iran, and Kuwait. Saddam makes billions on oil each year, it sure as hell ain’t going back to the people. This bum has to be spending that money on something else besides palaces.
Speaking of Israel and Palestine, don’t get me wrong. I think both sides are at fault and have committed equal atrocities. That century long war in that region can only be settled when both sides’ leaders and peoples accept their differences and settle their boundaries once and for all to end all the bloodshed. Neither side is innocent.
There are two camps. Those who wait for something to happen and those who refuse to wait for another 9/11. Clinton understood the danger Saddam posed. Bush understands the danger Saddam poses. I agree with them both. Innocent until proven guilty? Since when was Saddam innocent? He is a monster who has caused infinite crimes against humanity. The man hates the U.S., whether he is a current immediate threat or not is irrelevant. The point is that he is a future threat no matter what. You’d have to be pretty stupid to think he isn’t. You’d have to be pretty stupid to think that he hasn’t funded anti-America terrorist plans already.
"It’s our fault! We gave him the WoMD in the 80s!"
I agree wholeheartedly that it was pretty damn stupid AND hypocritical of the U.S. government to do what they did. This country isn’t a perfect country, we have our scars, hypocrites, and our past leaders have taken plenty of idiotic actions (just like every other country out there). We are now trying to rectify the mess we created. Regardless, with a madman like Saddam, if we didn’t idiotically give him WoMD, France would have (which they did). Russia would have. Saddam would’ve obtained it through some other means.
"Why didn’t we finish him off in the first war?"
Our mission in the first war was to defend Kuwait, not to create a new government for Iraq. That was the UN mission, nothing more nothing less. Hence, we pulled out once the job was done.
"The embargo has killed thousands of Iraqis."
BS, Saddam is the man who has killed thousands of Iraqis. Instead of putting the money back to the people, he places the money instead to build elaborate palaces, terrorists, and weapons. The ultimate responsibility of the Iraqi people leads back to Saddam, no one else.
"Saddam didn’t really kill his ‘own’ people. He only killed the people in the north and south who were rebelling."
Saddam’s crimes against his own country are very well documented. Which is actually quite interesting because one of the stipulations in all the UN resolutions after the first war was that Saddam respect human rights. Yet, every single UN country seems to have turned a blind eye to it save the U.S. and Britain, everyone seemed to have been focused on the WoMD.
He kills ANYONE who opposes him. Rebels, men, women, and children, it does not matter. It is not just the mass murders and punishments that are disgusting, but it is the sickening manner in which they are performed. Any slight suggestion of anti-Saddam could you get you killed. Hell, his own generals even refuse to give him "bad news" or they’ll be killed because Saddam detests "defeatists." This is a man who rules his country through fear and terror.
"Bush is doing this because he ruined the economy and he needs something to bring it back up."
What a bunch of crap. Again, more myth. Anyone who has any sense in the financial industry knows the exact reasons as to why the economy is down as it is. The fall of the dot com stocks, the scandals, and 9/11. This was the country Bush was thrust into; the plunge of the economy was inevitable. Coming to the conclusion that the purpose of this entire war is to bring the economy back up is plain outright paranoid. In addition, I don’t think I need to re-explain the estimated costs of going to war.
"We should be searching for Osama, the real cause of 9/11!"
Here’s what people don’t get. Our entire cause is just not to get those who caused 9/11, but to prevent it from ever happening AGAIN and to topple those who might cause and support such actions. And from what I understand, 2 days ago about 1000 troops were sent out to an undisclosed location in Afghanistan to continue the hunt for Osama. The hunt for him is just as intense as ever and is in no way being deterred by the war. The amount of media coverage on it inevitably did go down because of the war, but what did you expect? Everything is shifting to the war.
"If this is a war about getting rid of a dictator, then why haven’t we gotten rid of the other dictators out there?"
The U.S. lists around over 40 countries that they deem "dangerous." We can’t all of a sudden attack all these countries at once. Diplomacy has to be established first, war MUST ALWAYS be the last resort. Hell, we’re getting ridiculous backlash from our own public and the international public in trying to get rid of just ONE evil regime already. Imagine trying to get rid of the others. In addition, neither Congress nor the UN would support spending billions and billions in getting rid of every evil regime all at once. We have to start diplomacy with the big ones first or simply let it string out and see if the country can rebel by itself against their malevolent leaders, unless those malevolent leaders have showcased great animosity towards the U.S. and have come to the point where there is sufficient historical and current proof that those leaders in those regimes could either become immediate threats or are already immediate threats to the U.S. and our allies. Going to war isn’t this simple little thing that we can just declare any time we want.
"There is a better way."
This is an interesting issue. If you ask a reasonable protestor, they’ll tell you there is a better way, but when you ask them what way that is, they have no answer. I have the answer, there is no better way. Diplomacy as I stated before comes before anything else. War is a LAST RESORT. However, there is no way in hell we could’ve achieved diplomacy with Saddam. No way. Is 12 years not enough to prove that? How much more appeasement will we give this madman? Another 2 weeks? Another 2 months? Another 2 years? How long should we have kept up the deadly cycle? How long should the Iraqi people have to suffer? How long?
"Everyone has a right to their opinion."
I agree. It was my history teacher who once said, "Freedom of speech was meant to defend what the public deems as bad speech, not defend what the public deems as good speech." This is one of the greatest rights we have in this great nation of ours. If it is your moral principle and philosophy to be anti-war, if you find something wrong with the war no matter how ridiculous the reason is, and if you voice it in an suitable manner, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Here is however my main problem with the so-called peace protestors on the streets. It is the "appropriateness" with which they are protesting. Since when did protest mean vomiting, urinating on, and vandalizing property public and private? Since when did peace protest mean inciting violence? Since when did protest mean making living harder for everyone else? Since when did protesting mean burning the American flag? Since when did protest equal anarchy? Since when did protest mean endangering the public? The jobs of our police officers and national guards on the streets are tough enough as it is already.
Where were these protestors during Kosovo? Where were they? Protestors are quick to say, "Oh, don’t label us pro-Saddam. Don’t label us anti-America. Don’t label us… blah, blah, blah. We’re here for peace!" From the American protests I’ve seen, for every sign that proclaimed peace, there must be 10 signs ridiculing Bush. This is what I honestly believe, that a lot of these protestors are the extreme Democrat liberalists who are still pissed about the Bush-Gore debacle. I can understand someone disagreeing with Bush in many issues; I was never a particularly big fan of him either, but people who put Bush in the same category as Saddam, in the same category as Hitler, to equivocate him to Satan. To label this country, their OWN country, as terrorists. To pathetically attack our leader in such times, it is saddening and sickening. It is demoralizing our government, demoralizing our troops, and encouraging other wicked regimes out there. Do you have a right to do it? Damn right you do. Do I have to respect your rights? Of course. Do I have to respect such ludicrous opinions? No. Respecting rights and respecting opinions are 2 separate issues. In fact, the same right that gives anti-war protestors to spout that type of garbage is the same right that gives me the right to call it moronic and idiotic. It is in fact beyond moronic and idiotic, it is despicable and disgusting, it is beyond words.
These are not PEACE protestors, they are not ANTI-WAR protestors, they are ANTI-BUSH protestors and ANTI-GOVERNMENT protestors. Sean Hannity said it nicely today. Some of these protestors have signs saying "dying for dollars." What does that say about our soldiers and the families of our soldiers abroad? It is disrespecting and disgracing them. You can have an opinion that the government is partially doing it for money (no matter how ridiculous that opinion is), but to be blind to the humanitarian result of this war, the fact that we are liberating a nation, the fact that we are making the world a safer place for everyone by getting rid of this one man and his cronies. To be blind to all the future positive results of this fight is "jaded" and "naïve." Our troops are fighting for all the right reasons. They are dying for the betterment of humanity, I couldn’t give a crap what idiotic extreme conspiracy theory someone claims the government’s motive for this war is, for protestors to degrade their sacrifice appals me to the core.

DVD Boxset Review: The House of Cards Trilogy

The tagline for this three disc box set boasts of ‘a dark tale of greed, corruption and burning ambition’ and it certainly delivers. Based on the novels by Michael Dobbs, Baroness Thatcher’s former political adviser, The House of Cards Trilogy is a modern-day Macbeth and Richard III rolled into one.
The acclaimed trilogy (House of Cards, To Play the King and The Final Cut) focuses on Tory MP Francis Urquhart (portrayed brilliantly by Ian Richardson) as he intrigues against the PM Henry Collingridge and other government colleagues after being passed over for promotion. The award-winning House of Cards is the best offering of the trilogy, providing both an authentic and serious insight into what occurs inside the nation’s corridors of power. In respect to the former, this and the rest of the trilogy follows the examples set the political sitcoms Yes Minister, Yes Prime Minister and The New Statesman. If Baroness Thatcher is the Iron Lady, then Richardson’s Urquhart is the Man of Steel, who would have the measure of Jim Hacker, Sir Humphrey Appleby and Alan B’Stard. Richardson is also able to draw on the talented supporting casts from each series such as Susannah Harker (who portrayed the young Chronicle journalist Mattie Storin in the first series), Michael Kitchen (was is very convincing as the future George VII in To Play the King), Diane Fletcher (Urquhart’s Lady Macbeth-like wife) and Colin Jeavons (as Tim Stamper MP, Urquhart’s loyal henchman turned reluctant foe) amongst many others. To Play the King is the most controversial instalment of the trilogy, while The Final Cut is the dark finale. What makes all three parts so good above anything else though is how Richardson’s character confides in viewers with his insights and Machiavellian schemes to the point of both revelling in triumphs and feeling a slight sense of guilt for his crimes. The trilogy is complemented by a fitting and rousing orchestral score. As usual with most DVDs from the BBC, the special features are rather meagre with subtitles, episode and scene selections plus some interesting commentary for the first episode of each series by Richardson, screenwriter Andrew Davies and producer Ken Riddington. This box set is highly recommended and should be snapped up immediately while stocks last.
CERT: 15

Quote of the Day 23.11.2006: My Style of Government

"What we need are more real, politically-incorrect, bareknuckled, bureaucratic-bashing, government-smearing, traditional Americans who think and act like this:
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can." Barry Goldwater." - (Ultimate) Warrior

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Quote of the Day 22.11.2006

"He can't even tie his own shoelaces, let alone balance the books!" - C4' on David Milliband as a prospective Chancellor of the Exchequer

Greg Clark MP Is A Heretic!

I just thought that I would mention that after reading the front page of today's edition of the Guardian newspaper.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Quote of the Day 21.11.2006

"Death to the opposition" - Michael Dorn as Worf in Star Trek Deep Space Nine

Friday, November 17, 2006

Reasons Why Fluffy Helen Is Evil Part Six

"I consider myself to be quite laid-back and chilled."
I consider her to be petty, cold, calculating, vindictive and irrational!
"I’ve got a weird sense of humour. I’ll laugh at the weirdest things and occasionally will start laughing over nothing at all. I’m not insane, it’s OK."
Anyone who finds 'jokes' about the Holocaust and the gas chambers funny is not OK, they are insane.
"I’m bisexual and have had forays into bisexuality on occasion. I like to believe that everybody is bisexual though – some people are just more in tune with it than others."
She should not judge others by her own degraded 'standards'!
"I try and play down my intelligence on a daily and regular basis. I was allowed tp join MENSA after sitting their entrance exams when I was 11 and I don’t think they let in the stoopid."
MENSA must have made an exception for her. MENSA's standards are slipping!
"I’m a fairly outgoing and sociable person now, I’ll generally feel quite comfortable meeting strangers and starting up conversations."
'Evil cult leader' would be a more fitting description!
"I can’t drive yet, at least not legally."
When has something as trivial as the law stopped her from doing anything?
"I would quite happily vote green, and some of my views can be quite conservative at times."
What a liar!
"I am an atheist."
In other words, she is a devil-worshipper!
"I am a complete and total pacifist. I am against violence in all scenarios, without exception. I find it despicable that some people glorify and/or enjoy hurting other living creatures intentionally (human or otherwise)."
Yet another shameless lie!

Quote of the Day 17.11.2006

"David Milliband is a cunt" - Shotgun

Farewell Milton Friedman

No higher tribute can be paid to this great man than that from Baroness Thatcher, who called him an intellectual freedom fighter. Professors Friedman and Hayek's theories saved the world from the spectre of Sovietism and laid the foundations for the prosperity we enjoy today.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Quote of the Day 15.11.2006

"Gallas [George Galloway] is less of a dick and more of a harlot's rectum!" - C4' on Iain Dale's Diary during 10.11.2006

Monday, November 13, 2006

Quotes of the Day 13.11.2006: The Man in a Shed Edition

"If you voted for this government you should be deeply ashamed of yourself. As you should if you voted for the BNP."
"Also why does no one on the left worry about inciting Political Hatred ? (Just listen to the alleged liberal and concerned of the Guardian and BBC when they talk of "The Tories")."

Remembering Eddie Guerrero

It is hard to believe that it was exactly year ago today that the great Eddie Guerrero passed away. I still cannot believe that Eddie is dead because I keep thinking that he will return to WWE as if he is only injured. I still miss Eddie today as much as I did when I found out that he had died.
I was once privileged enough to watch Eddie wrestle in person at the Birmingham NEC during a Smack Down television taping on Tuesday 26 April 2005 when he and Rey Mysterio clashed with MNM for the WWE Tag Team Championship. Not only was this contest the best of the evening, it was also the one where Eddie abandoned his tag team partner and rival Rey to a chorus of "EDDIE SUCKS" chants having only a short time earlier been the most popular man in the building. Despite the change of heart from most of the crowd, some of us (myself included) still cheered for Eddie because we respected and admired him as both an entertainer and a human being.
Eddie was not perfect as has past been publicly documented, but by overcoming his inner demons, he became an inspirational figure to all true prowrestling fans.

Friday, November 10, 2006

In Defence Of Peter Davies

I have just e-mailed this letter to the Western Mail newspaper.
Dear Sir,
I am disgusted by the recent actions of the Conservatives’ Assembly leader Nicholas Bourne to prevent Newport Councillor Peter Davies from standing for election to the Assembly next May because he called for the abolition of the Assembly itself. I could understand such a course of action if Mr. Davies had advocated something immoral or illegal, but for Prof. Bourne to take disciplinary action over a legitimate argument against the existence of Assembly smacks of an authoritarianism that has more in common with Tony Blair than of the Conservatives.
I myself do not believe it would democratic or practical to turn the clock back to 1997, but I do believe there is a middle ground between abolition of the Assembly and continuing the status quo. The devolution settlement must be reformed by introducing a system of what I would term ‘dual representation’ whereby Welsh MPs would also serve as AMs. General Elections and Westminster By-elections would double-up as Assembly Elections. It is ridiculous that thanks to devolution, there are now two elected positions for the same tasks, especially since some AMs also sit in Westminster such as Mr. Davies’ son, David Davies in Monmouthshire. It would also be wise to merge the Cabinet positions of Scottish and Welsh Secretaries along with their departments with the portfolio of the Leader of the House of Commons, who would then act as a liaison official between Westminster and the Hollyrood and Cardiff Bay legislatures.
Such reforms would make the devolution settlement work more efficiently for the Celtic peoples, strengthen the legitimacy of the devolved bodies without undermining the political supremacy of the Commons (due to General Elections enjoying higher voter turnouts than the devolved equivalents) and help to solve the West Lothian Question. These reforms would also go a long way to reducing administrative costs that can then be used to improve state services such as health and education, which Mr. Davies Snr. is keen to see.
When I proposed this reform to the Shadow Welsh Secretary Cheryl Gillan over the summer, she was not keen on the idea because it might upset the Conservatives’ political rivals and their gravy train of vested and entrenched interests. Since when did the Conservatives’ leadership give a higher priority to propping up the desires and prejudices of a morally and intellectually bankrupt Labour party, their Liberal Democrat lackeys and the bipolar separatists than the best interests of the British and Welsh people and the Tories’ own membership? The policy I am proposing is an opportunity to prove to the people of Wales that we are not anti-Welsh while remaining true to Conservative principles.
Instead fawning over pollsters, special interest groups, Punch & Judy and Anglophobic European Union officials and instead of persecuting the father of one of his potential successors over a non-issue, Prof. Bourne should concentrate on devising practical reforms that provide real benefits for the people of Wales.
Yours sincerely
C4' BA (Hons.)

Quote of the Day 10.11.2006

"According to hit40uk, the number one on my birthday was...
Y.M.C.A. by the Village People
Nobody say a word!" - Jo Salmon on Jo's Journal
That would explain alot!

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Laugh Or Cry?

LONDON (Reuters) - Mayor Ken Livingstone flew back to Britain on Wednesday after an aborted trip to see left-wing Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez which has been branded by his opponents as a "monumental disaster."
His critics say the trip, which only got as far as Cuba before Chavez said he was "too busy" to see the mayor, was a huge waste of public money.
Livingstone had gone to Havana anyway but had been intending to go on to Caracas to work out the details of an oil deal which was announced during a trip to London by Chavez in May.
Venezuela would supply oil to fuel London's buses in return for technical advice on running public services.
But the trip coincided with an election campaign in Venezuela where the populist Chavez has been under fire for the plan to give cheap fuel to one of the world's richest cities.
Whether he was too tied up with campaigning or reluctant to face the possibility of losing votes, Chavez declined to meet Livingstone.
Livingstone cited "the time constraints of the Venezuelan presidential election."
The snub fuelled the mayor's critics back in London who had already been incensed by comments he made in Cuba.
London Assembly Conservative leader Angie Bray said the trip was a "monumental disaster".
"Paramount in the minds of Londoners will be not only how much this junket has actually cost the taxpayers -- and I suspect there won't be much change in the public purse from 25,000 pounds -- but also what damage it has done London's reputation following the outrageous comments made by Livingstone whilst in Cuba," she said.
The Conservatives called for a report on the travel costs for the mayor and at least seven advisors believed to have accompanied him on the trip.
During a cricket match in Havana, Livingstone had praised ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro and blasted U.S. policy towards the communist Caribbean island.
He also called George W. Bush's win in the 2000 U.S. election a "judicial coup d'etat" and the war in Iraq "evil".
Livingstone defended his plans to visit Venezuela and said he was confident the oil deal would be signed in the near future.
London Assembly Liberal Democrat opposition leader Mike Tuffrey said: "This is a screw-up of colossal proportions.
"The Mayor has just flown half way around the world, amounting to the best part of a week away from his duties in London and now we learn that the entire trip comes down to a Caribbean junket to see a cricket match."
I do not know whether to laugh at Chavez's snub to Red Ken or cry at how Livingstone has wasted taypayers' money for what was literally an ego trip! One thing is certain though, Red Ken is not fit to hold public office and should be removed from power at next year's election.

HATE: A Poem

I do not have much time and enthusiasm for poetry, but I did surprise myself when I wrote this poem a month ago. I hope you all enjoy it!

Each morning that I awake,
I am instantly consumed by all of my swelling HATE,
All of this bubbling HATE gives me such great sorrow,
It seems it will forever cruse and plague me each morrow,
Only with the greatest forbearance,
Will I eventually have my dear sweet vengeance,
My furious revenge will be my foes’ collective fatal fate,
There shall be no mercy on that notable date.
I hope that while I wait,
That none of the intense HATE I carry inside me will be too great,
I pray that I can wait until the cherished date,
When then I can finally unleash all of my pent-up HATE,
On all of those evil liars and nasty fakes,
Who with all of their sadistic and vindictive desires,
Are always on the make,
And always on the take.
On each and every single tormenter,
I will show why both my character and power,
Are always just so much greater,
Before they meet their maker,
And out of fear they scream for somewhere far safer,
When they are sent straight to hell forever,
For they have made me so very bitter,
Their foul conduct has made me a meaner and stronger fighter.
But until the time is finally ripe,
When vengeance will be mine,
I will continue each day to awake,
With all of my veins flowing with unholy HATE,
Yet when the time finally does come,
On some future date that I am not prepared to state,
Then there will be absolutely no cage,
That can contain my very bloody rage!

George Galloway Storms Out of UCC Debate!

Controversial British MP, George Galloway stormed out of a debate in UCC last night. In the debate on US Foreign Policy, organised by the UCC Philosophical Society, Mr. Galloway was proposing the motion 'That This House Believe's US Foreign Policy is the Biggest Crime Since World War II' against Dublin-based TV producer and journalist, Gerry Gregg.
In front of 500 people, Mr. Galloway spoke of the role of the United States in supporting Israeli actions in Palestine, while Mr. Gregg spoke of the history of the USSR in comparison to the United States. Controversy arose when Mr. Gregg made several allegations against Mr. Galloway regarding his links with Saddam Hussein's regime, allegations to which Mr. Galloway took exception, demanding that Mr. Gregg withdraw the remarks. The debate continued when Mr. Gregg refused, but controversy erupted again when Mr. Gregg repeated his allegations, prompting Mr. Galloway to walk out of the debate, criticising the chair of the debate for failing to intervene as well as threatening legal action against Mr. Gregg over his remarks. Between 150-200 of the audience walked out of the debate with Mr. Galloway, who returned to the UK early this morning. Mr. Gregg stood over his remarks last night, stating that he was willing to defend all his comments in court should Mr. Galloway take further action.
The debate continued following the walk-out with up to 300 people remaining, while the motion was defeated when put to the floor.

Monday, November 06, 2006

Happy 20th Anniversary Sir Alex Ferguson CBE OBE

May you guide Manchester United to more Premiership and Champions' League titles!

Don’t Make Saddam A Martyr!

I would like to applaud the conviction of the Butcher of Baghdad Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity. However I disagree with the Iraqi court’s decision to sentence him to death by hanging as such a tariff makes the court no better than the man himself.
As the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell was correct to note on Radio Four's The World This Weekend yesterday, the execution of Saddam Hussein would only make him a martyr and martyrs can never be silenced. I also disagree with the Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague's comment about Saddam being more dangerous alive than dead (Mr. Hague is known for his enthusiasm for capital punishment) as for all his bravado, Saddam is a political has-been, a pathetic figure who has blundered his way from one disaster to another.
The tyrant should be just left to rot to death in jail to deny his ego the satisfaction of martyrdom!

Quote of the Day 6.11.2006

"Almost all true Conservatives start out as liberals. All true Nazis start out as socialists." - garypowell on Iain Dale's Diary

Friday, November 03, 2006

Salmond & Price: Attention-Seeking Media Whores

I have just read in the latest edition of the Carmarthen Journal newspaper about how both the SNP leader Alex Salmond and my local MP, Plaid Cymru's Adam Price branded the Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram a disgrace in the House of Commons for rightly suggesting that the hypocritical anti-war movement was "pro-dictator" during a Commons debate on Iraq last week. While Ingram is indeed a disgrace (and a hypocrite) because he is a stooge to Britain's very own dictator Adolf Blair, Salmond and Price are also disgraces as they are both apologists for international tyrants such as Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il. Furthermore, these two separatists, like many dictators, are also attention-seeking media whores!

Quotes of the Day 3.11.2006

"Socialism is the doctrine of using The State to destroy the nation" - voyager
"Tony Blair is a hound, a rotter and a pathological liar. But the end is nigh for Tony and NuLabour...." - Istanbul Tory
"I believe Tony Blair is an out-and-out rascal, terminally untrustworthy and close to being unhinged... a pathological confidence-trickster. To the extent that he ever believes what he says, he is delusional. To the extent that he does not, he is an actor whose first invention — himself — has been his only interesting role" - Matthew Parris in The Times on 18.3.2006

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Quotes of the Day 2.11.2006: Who Governs Britain?

"Labour Couldn't Run a Bath" - The UK Daily Pundit
"The Guardian is still read by people who think they ought to run the country; the Daily Mirror is now read by the people who used to run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the people who think the country should be run as it was 50 years ago, and the Daily Telegraph by people who think it still is.
Meanwhile The Times and The Sun are owned by the person who actually does run the country." - Paul Linford

Great Minds Think Alike

"The EU issue, as far as I am concerned, will result in war similiar to the Yugoslav conflict because as we become further embroiled in their machinations, the other member states, especially those like the twat stinking fucking frogs, will grow more and more dependant on our membership, and therefore will never allow us to go even if it means war." - Shotgun, October 2006
"European history is littered with countless instances of previous political and monetary integrations and unions that have created a lasting legacy of resentment and antagonism between the either the former sovereign constituents of these super-states or a number of religious or ethical minorities that have been neglected, abused, persecuted and outnumbered in their traditional homelands by settlers. These previous super-states were born out of war and conflict and have all produced political extremists and agitators who have enjoyed political power of some degree. These episodes have occurred with varying degrees of severity in Ireland, Italy in the late 19th Century, the Balkans and Germany. The only existing 'European' super-state that was born of the need for peaceful co-existence that has not produced an effective mainstream political extremist leader has been Great Britain. Yet even the British union has had a very turbulent history with most of the Irish provinces securing Dominion status after an armed campaign, the Troubles in the remaining province of Ulster, Scottish rebellions and the simmering resentment that still exists today among both the Scottish and Welsh for English dominion over them. Although a potential European super-state would be born of similar favourable conditions as the United Kingdom was, a Federal Europe will not stop the emergence of newer regional militants such as the IRA or ETA or the same simmering resentment the Europeans would have of each other. It would not therefore take much to cause another Yugoslavian-type civil war within Europe, only on a much bigger scale with more militant factions plus greater socio-political uncertainty and variables to consider."

"While a European super-state may initially succeed in suppressing traditional nation identities through the creeping influence of political correctness and a fig leaf of libertarian-democracy, ultimately these national identities will reassert themselves with a vengeance under the patronage of political extremists that will tear apart Europe and lead to bitterly contested civil wars akin to those that occurred in the former Yugoslavia. While these possible civil wars may not result in similar religious conflicts or genocides as what happened in the Balkans during the 1990s, nationalist xenophobia will still be a major driving force behind these conflicts and will in a cruel and bitter twist of irony cause what the founding fathers of the European Union were so desperate to prevent reoccurring when they began the initial European project." - C4, January 2006

Cameron Should Have Walked Out In Protest Against Tribal Martin

Yesterday in the House of Commons during Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Speaker of the House Michael Martin abused his power to prevent the Conservatives’ Leader David Cameron asking a legitimate question about the succession to both Labour leadership AND the premiership on the farcical grounds that it had nothing to do with the business of government. The Conservatives were naturally, understandable outraged at the Speaker, and their fury increased when Martin threatened to suspend the sitting after being heckled by one unidentified Tory MP, adding the dictatorial insult "and then your leader won’t be able to speak".
David Cameron’s original question was a matter for the Commons, as whoever is elected by Labour to succeed Tony Blair as its leader will also automatically become the next Prime Minister. Today’s Western Mail newspaper reported that even "Labour MPs seemed surprised that Mr Cameron had been stopped in his tracks for making an inquiry that seemed to them no worse than the normal ruderies associated with the dirty business of Prime Minister’s question time." So why did Martin abused his position?
Although Martin himself has no time for Blair and his cronies (as evidenced by his rebukes to Blair for using Prime Minister’s Question Time as a platform to attack Conservative policies instead of defending his administration’s track record), as the Labour MP for Glasgow North East, Martin is still the typical Old Labour tribal animal (Jo Salmon must be so proud of him). Martin just cannot resist the urge to attack the traditional political enemy – the Tory toffs – despite being required to be politically neutral while presiding over Commons debates. Yesterday was not the first time that Martin has clashed with the Tory leadership in his role as the Speaker as he had had prior run-ins with the former Conservative leader “Dunkers” Ian Duncan Smith during 2001 to 2003.
When Martin made his arbitrary judgement, Cameron and his colleagues should have embarrassed the Speaker by walking out of the chamber in protest. The impact of this action would not have been lost on Martin and would have the most effective rebuke against him than anything else at their disposal.

Spineless Kerry Caves In To A Storm In A Teacup

Across the Atlantic Ocean in the United States of America this past Monday, the Democrat Senator and former presidential candidate John Kerry found himself at the centre of a farcical row over a joke he made to students at the University of California about studying hard if they do not want to find themselves "stuck in Iraq". Although Kerry’s joke was targeted at the present Bush administration’s flawed policies over Iraq, this did not prevent desperate and overacting Republicans from spinning it into an insult against U.S. military forces in the Middle East.
Confronted by the dire opinion polls in the run-up to next week’s mid-term Congressional elections, the Republican are desperately grasping at straws to improve their chances of survival before polling day, thus explaining the current ‘controversy’ over Kerry’s joke. This episode just serves to prove how right the former professional wrestler “Ultimate” Warrior was when he claimed that there were scumbags with "jelly spines and mush minds" on each side of the political divide.
Remaining on the subject of spines, Kerry himself proved how he lacked one by apologising for the joke when no apology was needed. As a former military man himself, does any sensible human being for a moment believe that Kerry would mock his own nation’s armed service personnel who are risking their lives to rebuild Iraq after decades of oppression under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein? As has been already noted, Kerry’s joke was aimed at the White House, not the military.
This whole saga has demonstrated John Kerry at both his best and worst. Kerry made an excellent point about the flawed post-war strategy (or lack of any at all) of the Bush presidency, but undermined it by retracting it under pressure from hypersensitive Republicans. Apart from the usual socialist hypocrisy for which he stands for (and until this week, his lack of personality), it is no wonder Kerry lost to Dubya two years ago and would most likely again in two years time (providing he even emerges as the Democrat’s presidential candidate in the forthcoming primaries).

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Reasons Why Fluffy Helen Is Evil Part Five

"Well. I've cheated before. Three guys came along at once and I went with my natural instinct, which was to date all of them."
She really does not have any informing principles!

Quote of the Day 1.11.2006

"I'm a reformed character." - Fluffy Helen "Stalin in Drag" Watters
BREAKING NEWS: Pigs have been sighted flying over the frozen tundra that was once Hell!

Cameron Must Dismiss Barker For Hypocrisy If Allegations Are True

This past week, the Shadow Environment Secretary and Conservative MP Greg Barker (a close friend of the Tory Leader David Cameron) announced that he was divorcing his wife and the mother of his two children, Celeste after allegations were made that he had had a homosexual affair with decorator William Banks-Blaney.
If these allegations are true, then Cameron must dismiss his friend from the Shadow Cabinet for hypocrisy. While I consider extra-marital affairs to be sackable offences in themselves, conducting a homosexual liaison behind your wife’s back while actively casting your vote in the House of Commons against measures to reduce discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transsexuals is far worse, it is the height of hypocrisy! Now, these allegations are just that, allegations, but if these are true, then Barker is a contemptible little man who should be utterly ashamed of himself for both the affair and the hypocrisy. If these allegations are true, then Barker’s position in the Shadow Cabinet is totally untenable and against the public interest. If these allegations are true, then the only honourable course of action Barker can perform is to resign from his post and if he refuses do the right thing, then it is Cameron’s duty to dismiss him.