| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
popinjay
Joined: 02 Jan 2007
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
|
| This is a great birthday present for me. I hope it wasn't recorded before news broke of the American sanctions on Iran. George would kick arse on that. Fat Boy Falconer is on, so hopefully George gives him a bashing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Axlsbabe
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
on now  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
popinjay
Joined: 02 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| He destroyed that idiot student in the audience who wanted war |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axlsbabe
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| he sure did! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nekokate
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Hahaha!!! The red faced, bushy-haired posh student wanker who asked "is it time to hang up a THIS COUNTRY IS FULL sign?" was actually called Theodore Bartholomew. That is almost parody!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
i was disappointed that george let maude get away with the 'iran are killing our boys' line - theres no evidence of that. if there was, we'd already be attacking - theres been generals here and in america who have made a point of saying it - they haven't got anything. other than that he was pretty good 
its annoying though that the media ( i watched the question time extra bit after ) just work on the assumption that iran IS pursuing nuclear weapons, when the iaea hasn't found ANY evidence of it - the american government says it is, the media doesn't question it and just works from that
interesting that these new sanctions and the propaganda thats coming out from everywhere ( the bbc has been on overdrive today, channel 4 news was crap - didn't even mention anything about any need for evidence, or that its irans right under the npt for nuclear power ) comes after the announcement from the iranian central bank that its finished converting the countrys dollar reserves to other currencies ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nekokate
Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| You make a good point, Luke. And let's not forget the point Seymour Hersch made in his recent speech - in order to make a nuclear weapon you need to enrich uranium to at least 90%, and Iran are currently at 3.67%... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Happy birthday popinjay - are you another year wiser or just another year older? haha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
popinjay
Joined: 02 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Just another year older. ;) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mickyv
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Yes I also thought he did quite well, but he should not have let Maude get away with the snide comment about sucking up to Saddam, as this is thing that really damages GG in the eyes of those who don’t know the context, which is unfortunately most the Public. To counter this I feel he should always come down hard on people who try this smear on, by saying something along the line of what he said at the Senate, “I met with Saddam in order to end sanctions & to stop war, and you know it, so don’t try smearing me as a Saddam supporter when my Public record proves the opposite”. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axlsbabe
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| the wink during the introduction was a nice touch *faints* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
popinjay
Joined: 02 Jan 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| Are you putting this up for download, face? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
faceless
admin
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
| I am yeah, but it buggered up when I tried before so I'm putting it on guba now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mickyv
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
I've just watched it again, and remembered that Maude's slur about Saddam, was just preceded by that baseless accusation of GG being a Middle East "revisionist", GG should have challenged him on that as well.
(Regarding that "idiot student in the audience who wanted war", is it just me, but he not have a frightening resemblance to a young Blair ? Not only in looks, but also in that strange messianic sincerity & eerie self-righteousness when he said "I would fight for my Country". He really gave me the creeps ! As to that other "red faced, bushy-haired posh student wanker", he's living proof that sometimes good money is wasted on trying to educate people ! Incidentally I think that Kate's colourful descriptive powers just pip Popinjay's this time, but there's always another Question Time for a rematch !) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luke
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Location: by the sea
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
a blog on this weeks question time;
| Quote: | BBC's Question Time
Question Time amplifies current political themes that have establishment approval. It reduces the audience to spectators of the great and the good who secured political power over them through corrupt use of wealth.
Often interesting to consider is what they don't say about subjects, as much as what they do. David Dimbleby acts as "Mr Boundary" who imposes limits on acceptable discourse, steering matters away from controversial comment that may challenge existing establishment power hierarchies.
It's designed to make people feel they have a voice on the political issues of the day, even though they don't have any influence whatsoever because they've been persuaded to surrender their political liberty and decision making powers, over every issue discussed, by the corrupt use of wealth.
The audience has its own producer, Alison Fuller, whose role in producing the audience is not disclosed. The programme also has the usual full production team who perform various tasks in putting it together for public consumption. And the content is edited before transmission by Rob Hopkin, presumably to remove anything that may unduly affect public sensibilities or provoke mass insurrection.
This week's panellists:
LORD FALCONER - Career: Charles Falconer was the first Secretary of State for Justice, having previously served as Lord Chancellor from June 2003 to May 2007.
FRANCIS MAUDE MP - Career: Francis Maude is the Conservative shadow minister for the Cabinet Office, and was the Conservative Party chairman from 2005 to 2007.
GEORGE GALLOWAY MP - Career: George Galloway is the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow.
FRASER NELSON - Career: Fraser Nelson is the political editor of The Spectator, and a columnist for the News of the World. He was previously political editor of The Scotsman and The Business magazine.
Dr Maria Misra - Career: Maria Misra is a historian and lecturer in modern history at Oxford University.
Questions are vetted by the BBC production team before being permitted to be put to the panel by members of the audience. David Dimbleby then chooses which panellist should respond, and in what order. He therefore decides who is given most thinking time to respond. Of course, key panellists from the government are probably given prior notice of themes, if not specific questions, although this is always denied.
Q1: Are today's sanctions against Iran a further step towards inevitable military conflict or can they help to resolve the situation peacefully?
What was not discussed by panellists was economic dependence on oil and the ability to threaten Iran with nuclear weapons that are supposed to be being decommissioned under the NPT.
The discussion rather avoided the self-interest in threatening others for vital economic resources.
The underlying assumption was that it's okay for US/UK to threaten anyone with nuclear weapons, although one member of the audience came close to raising this point. A member of the audience directly questioned the need for nuclear weapons, but the economic need to threaten others for resources was rather avoided by the panel.
Q2: With the latest projection that the UK population is to hit 65 million by 2015, is it time to hang up 'this island is full sign'?
Q3: Would it be, as president Sarkozy claims, intelligent to think of Tony Blair as president of Europe?
Q4: Did Labour put Party interests before the interests of Scotland last May?
FM pointed out the conflict of interest between Douglas Alexander acting as the Minister responsible for the electoral process and the Labour Party co-ordinator for that electoral campaign. This is, of course, the same Douglas Alexander who told Jeremy Paxman on the BBC that Labour had conducted sophisticated trend analysis on actual postal ballot vote results, before the main election count in the 2005 general election. Allowing them to change their propaganda messages based upon prior knowledge of actual results.
MM said "the timing of elections, the design of ballot papers, the co-ordination of local and national elections, the position on the ballot paper of your party, affects the outcome and politicians know that. So why allow the addicts to be in charge of the pharmacy?" She went on to propose giving over control of the whole process to an independent commissioner. Due to the sharp practice which has now become common during UK elections this step is long overdue, in my view.
Q5: Does the cash-for-honours scandal, and the apparent lack of co-operation during the investigation, demonstrate a rot at the centre of British political life?
Dimbleby repeated the question but dropped the key word "political" from it, shifting focus from "British political life," to just "British life."
CF said "the police investigated properly, and properly came to the conclusion that there wasn't a basis for prosecution." This was a simple lie that was not picked up by Dimbleby. The police submitted their case to the CPS and it was the CPS who decided there was insufficient evidence for a prosecution, not the police. A member of the audience later picked him up on this obvious lie.
CF went on to claim "because the House of Lords is the only part of the legislature where the government of the day doesn't have, and will never have, a majority. And that means the Lords can stop any government doing things." Another direct and blatant lie from Falconer, which Dimbleby chose not to correct. Asquith, when he introduced the 1911 parliament Act, did so under threat to flood the Lords with Liberal peers with sanction from the King. As a former Lord Chancellor, Falconer knows that the 1911 parliament Act gives the House of Commons, and the government majority of MPs, authority to push any legislation through the House of Lords which it chooses. The question is why does the BBC give a platform for unelected ex-ministers to lie blatantly to the nation about how our system of government actually works?
GG pointed out the usual argument against unelected officials making laws that proscribe the liberty of every area of people's lives.
One member of the audience pointed out that if the police did not get full co-operation from the government then the CPS cannot then go on to claim there is insufficient evidence for a prosecution. Clearly, without full disclosure from those under investigation the only option left is for the CPS to put the matter before a court of law to decide, in the public interest. Falconer again lied by saying that the CPS never suggested there was a lack of information for a prosecution. Lack of evidence is a lack of information and this was due to a lack of co-operation. Dimbleby let this slip past as well.
FM said "there is loss of trust in political parties and party funding, and there is this sense that there's a big donor culture, and we're really keen to change that." Of course, he's happy to limit party donations to £50,000, because his party has many donors who can afford to give this amount. Labour have far fewer wealthy donors so this would disadvantage them because money influences who gets elected to positions of power. If the cap on donations was set to £5 in order to remove the influence of massive wealth, he wouldn't be quite so keen on change then.
What was not discussed was the influence that the money buys or how it is used to usurp political liberty from the people and entrench power within a privileged ruling class. Partly because Dimbleby moved the discussion onto the next question without taking any more open questions from the wider audience. If the issue was discussed in more detail then the editor has removed anything that might make people think along lines that are not approved.
Q6: Is the government right not to impose a ban on smacking?
This was the final question this week. Leaving people to mull over their use of violence in the home, rather than that of our corrupt political leaders. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Couchtripper - 2005-2015
|
