Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Orwell]

How original I am, I'm not sure, GB. In a sense, Odo came first. But Odo evolved and even appeared to split into bits - but I won't say more on that phenomena - wouldn't be tactful. (((((Don't tell him I said this, GB, but I began to find it hard to take Odo seriously. He'd be devastated to know it - we were very close once!)))))

As to: "real world equivalent, without the lunacy". Funny how that played out. George and I have a lot in common believe it or not. Coincidence? Fate? Destiny? Who can say? Started with "Orwe" then "Orwell" popped into the brain, and then "less the lunacy" came quite readilly. And my photograph - surely captures something of the essential Me - half man, half woman, half man-bear-pig. (And the photo came before Orwell arrived - just ask Petty. Synchronicity?)

[Pettytyrant101]

I find all this talk deeply disturbing. There is the Banks clan, respectable and some times from a Tyrant standpoint infurating but stalwart members of our community and much loved. And there is Orwell who is not a Banks, which is all I need to know. They are all different, all real, and all members of our forum. Real world and reality be damned!
For the record I prefer to talk with Orwell and chat with the Bankses. But I wouldn't do without any of them. So GB ask no questions just be happy we have all the Banks and Orwell to keep us entertained and informed.

[Orwell]

Wise words, Petty, wise words, and no matter how ever-so-low Odo's opinion of you, I still call you friend.

[Pettytyrant101]

Right thats enough of this sort of unmanly talk. We'll be hugging next I'm going to bed! Night all.

[Orwell]

Sweet dreams. Hope the bed bugs don't bite... err... yeah mate, see ya down the track... have a beer then.

[Pettytyrant101]

Wonder what GB will make of this?;

"Mr Cameron's government's health reforms have been halted in order to "pause, listen and reflect" after they were slammed by professional bodies, including the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing.
But Mr Cameron claimed the pause has been "a genuine chance for people to get involved and make a difference", and has triggered "an important debate" in the country.
There is little detail in this speech, no reiteration of the reforms and certainly no outline of what has changed, what has been dropped and what will be kept.
But the Prime Minister has made five guarantees:
"We will not endanger universal coverage - we will make sure it remains a National Health Service.
"We will not break up or hinder efficient and integrated care - we will improve it.
"We will not lose control of waiting times - we will ensure they are kept low.
"We will not cut spending on the NHS - we will increase it.
"And, if you're worried that we are going to sell off the NHS and create some American-style private system - we will not."
Appealing for trust, Mr Cameron said of those five promises that they are "guarantees you can hold me to and that I will be personally accountable for"."

[Gandalf's Beard]

Wonder what GB will make of this?;

"Mr Cameron's government's health reforms have been halted in order to "pause, listen and reflect" after they were slammed by professional bodies, including the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing.
But Mr Cameron claimed the pause has been "a genuine chance for people to get involved and make a difference", and has triggered "an important debate" in the country.
There is little detail in this speech, no reiteration of the reforms and certainly no outline of what has changed, what has been dropped and what will be kept.
But the Prime Minister has made five guarantees:
"We will not endanger universal coverage - we will make sure it remains a National Health Service.
"We will not break up or hinder efficient and integrated care - we will improve it.
"We will not lose control of waiting times - we will ensure they are kept low.
"We will not cut spending on the NHS - we will increase it.
"And, if you're worried that we are going to sell off the NHS and create some American-style private system - we will not."
Appealing for trust, Mr Cameron said of those five promises that they are "guarantees you can hold me to and that I will be personally accountable for"."

I don't believe a word he is saying. But look at what just a little pressure does. He now has to contradict publicly everything he's trying to do. A little public outrage and a march against Parliament might really stop him cold.

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

I'm not sure what the "important debate" this has triggered is. Far as I could tell it went like this;

Tories- we will flog off parts of the NHS to the private sector and introduce the private market through the GP's office.

And the GP's, nurses and public said "No you bloody won't unless you want kicked straight back out of office."

Tories- "Bugger we ain't gettig away with that then."

Not exactly what I would call a debate! Fortunetly this madness has been confined to south of the border as Health is devolved in Scotland and steadfstly socialist in outlook.

[Gandalf's Beard]

I hate it when I'm right.

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

Right GB? Not that I doubt it but about what in particular in this instance.

[Kafria]

Wonder what GB will make of this?;

"Mr Cameron's government's health reforms have been halted in order to "pause, listen and reflect" after they were slammed by professional bodies, including the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing.
But Mr Cameron claimed the pause has been "a genuine chance for people to get involved and make a difference", and has triggered "an important debate" in the country.
There is little detail in this speech, no reiteration of the reforms and certainly no outline of what has changed, what has been dropped and what will be kept.
But the Prime Minister has made five guarantees:
"We will not endanger universal coverage - we will make sure it remains a National Health Service.
"We will not break up or hinder efficient and integrated care - we will improve it.
"We will not lose control of waiting times - we will ensure they are kept low.
"We will not cut spending on the NHS - we will increase it.
"And, if you're worried that we are going to sell off the NHS and create some American-style private system - we will not."
Appealing for trust, Mr Cameron said of those five promises that they are "guarantees you can hold me to and that I will be personally accountable for"."

But this is becoming typical for a lot of coalition policy.

"we'll stop the school buildings, even where the go aheads already been given" - schools go no you bloody won't and they don't!
"We'll stop early years reading schemes" - no you bloody won't - authors/librarians and nurserys - and they don't
many more seem to have happened too!

locally we've had - we'll save money by closing over half the libraries - cue large loud angry nos - and now only 8 under threat!

[Orwell]

Are the Tories testing public opinion and responding positively to it? Conservatives believe only in NECESSARY change, after all, that's my understanding.

[Gandalf's Beard]

And now for something completely Different! I am sorry to interrupt your serious posts. But I have a couple of priceless ones from my other favourite forum of late:

Don't worry about context in this first one. It sort of speaks for itself!

Seriously!?? Thomas Arnold??? Again...

Why do I feel like this thread is DOC's version of Groundhog Day???

This is one of my favourite bits from Josh McDowell's tract:


Quote:

A QUESTION OF HISTORY
After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings--or it is the most remarkable fact of history.

I'm going with "one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings."

(I didn't need 30 days to work that out either)


GB

PS: Oddly enough Sir William Ramsay and the "historian of the first rank" Luke were referenced in the tract too. I'm feeling one of those head exploding Time Loops coming on.

[Pettytyrant101]

I had to google the names GB just to have a clue what ou mightbe on about-very left field! For the benifit of others (and assuming these are the right people);

Dr. Thomas Arnold (13 June 1795 – 12 June 1842) was a British educator and historian. Arnold was an early supporter of the Broad Church Anglican movement. He was headmaster of Rugby School from 1828 to 1841
Joslin "Josh" McDowell is a Christian apologist, evangelist, and writer. He is within the Evangelical tradition of Protestant Christianity, and is the author or co-author of some 77 books.
Sir William Ramsay, KCB FRSE (2 October 1852 – 23 July 1916) was a Scottish chemist who discovered the noble gases and received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1904 "in recognition of his services in the discovery of the inert gaseous elements in air" (along with Lord Rayleigh who received the Nobel Prize in Physics that same year for the discovery of argon).

I only knew who the last one was.


Kafria- I find the lack of being able to make a policy then apply it wihtin the colaition to be indicitive of coalitions. WHen Labour and the Lib Dems were in coalition in the Scottish Parliament very little actually got done. The SNP within a year or so as a minority government achieved more. Perhaps the Tories would have been better if they had gone it alone- although perhaps not as Westminister does not lend itself to cross party consensus.


edit add- there a documentary from the BBC- currenly on the iplayer for UK residents- called Poor Kids. It also made their news pages- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13632856
Saddest and most uplifting thing I've seen in ages. The kids in it for the most part manage to both remain optimistic and understand the situation, with a clarity that at times seems years beyond their ages and cruelly deprives them of any innocnece in childhood. Some of the facts in it were quite shocking. The amount of kids in poverty, the estimates of how much that will rise by -11%- over the next 3 years with current government policy. The stas for asthma and other health risks -40& of all UK childrens asthma comes form the poorest 10% of the country. But it was just the sheer unfairness of it all that was overwhelming.
And there Orwell is your answer to an earlier question- am I being repressed- no but children in my country, a rich country, whilst others throw away more in a half eaten restraunt meal at the Ivy than those families get to spend on food in a month- and thats worth fighting even if it doesn't directly effect me anymore. And as GB could no doubt explain-at length and with charts and quotes -those people are not there by chance or because thats just how it is, theres a whole interconnected weave of economic policy which is favouring the wealthy at their expense and thats worth fighting too.

[Pettytyrant101]

More worrying government rumblings. This time the review of the anti-terrorism strategy. The Home Secratery Terersa May said the strategy would be targeted against "those forms of terrorism which pose the greatest risk to our national security, currently al-Qaeda and those they inspire".- which accepting the contention the risk is as high as government claim is fair enough, but then she added this which I found much, much more worrying. See what you make of it;
"(We) must also recognise and tackle the insidious impact of non-violent extremism, which can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views which terrorists exploit," she said."

Now I may be mistaken here but is someone with strong views who is non-violent not just someone with a strong view? And what exactly does the last bit mean 'can popularise views which terrorist exploit' what sort of views? The sort of views that lets people know about massive civilian casualties in Western led wars? The sort of views that speak of our troops torturing prisoners of war? Whats going on here?

[Gandalf's Beard]

Okay this one requires a little background. A Known lying liar named Andrew Breitbart is infamous for publishing False stories and re-edited footage on his website about Democrats. His lies have led to some real political damage. A community organizing group with the acronym ACORN which received federal funding for such things as voter registration drives and provided free assistance to the needy was destroyed single-handedly by Andrew Breitbart. His lies weren't caught until waaaaaay after the fact, once the damage had been done.

His lies and re-edited footage also got a government employee in the USDA fired. It took a few days before Obama and his Chief of Staff realized they had been played for fools by the Hoax. They were forced to apologize the fired employee and invite her back to work. She is currently suing Breitbart for defamation of character.

So you can imagine when this lying liar broke a "story" involving Democratic congressman Anthony Weiner allegedly posting a picture of his throbbing member (he was wearing underwear) on his twitter account to a female fan, nobody believed the blogger that cried wolf[e]

He claimed his account was hacked, and everyone believed him because they'd been taken in once too often by Breitbart, except of course for Conservatives who hammered Anthony Weiner. Weiner was eventually (a few days ago now) forced to recant and confess that he had indeed sent the tweet in question. Now this has to be the feeblest sex-scandal ever. But that didn't stop Conservative Dickwads from crowing that Breitbart was (finally) right about something.

Of course I had supported Weiner and his claims up until the moment he confessed. At that point, I openly conceded that I had been wrong (something conservatives never do). But this wasn't enough for several Conservative Assholes (sorry, I'm not in the mood for expletive censoring) who repeatedly lied about me:

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor
GB, I think you are sad you participated in this thread because you made such an ass of yourself, along with a few of the usual suspects.

I think you must have missed a lot of this thread then. When Weiner confessed I admitted I was wrong. And you're not the first one to post this idiotic lie about me.

And in the last few pages I had to explain to one of the folks on my side how much I enjoy stupid arguments.

Double Fail!!!!

This is one of the main reasons you and some of your cohort's arguments lack integrity despite being right. You're not happy with just being right, so you have to make crap up.

Just like Breitbart, in fact. He gets one thing right after all of his lies, and he gets a free pass??? Not so fast Pal, Breitbart should watch his ass, because we have hackers and photo-shoppers on our side too!!!



Now I wouldn't mind at all throwing the personalization right back at you, I enjoy a good Flame War! But I'm restraining myself.

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

This is a bit like being at a party where someone keeps rushing in and breathlessly telling you about whats going on in the other room before rushing off again!

[Gandalf's Beard]

Yeah, sorry about that. There are more important things going on. But I'm pretty hacked off at the dude who called me an ass.


GB

[Orwell]

What about calling some folk "goats"- or perhaps "lovers-of-goats"?

[Gandalf's Beard]

What about calling some folk "goats"- or perhaps "lovers-of-goats"?

Works for me!

GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/08/florida.shooting.witness/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

Video footage at the link: I couldn't figure out how to embed it.

CNN) -- Miami Beach authorities are disputing an allegation by a witness to a fatal police shooting in Florida that his cell phone was "smashed" by officers because he filmed their actions.

The police department denied Narces Benoit's claim that his phone was crushed by an officer last week after he recorded a video of the fatal shooting.

Authorities supplied photos of the phone in question, saying they demonstrate the phone is only slightly damaged, "and it is unknown when this damage occurred."

In Benoit's video, gunfire breaks out, and officers are seen firing on a car. The fatal shooting of an erratic driver on Memorial Day has made headlines nationwide after Benoit's video and others became public.

In the video, officers are seen instructing Benoit to stop filming. One officer, whose words are unclear, points his gun directly into the camera before backing away.

Benoit and his girlfriend, Ericka Davis, asserted that officers smashed the phones of other witnesses as well, but a police department spokesman said Monday they received no other complaints of damaged property.
The statement said police took several phones from witnesses, but says that was done to obtain evidence.
"Any and all video of the incident is crucial to the investigation, and it is not unusual for police to secure any video that may have evidentiary value," the statement said.

CNN affiliate WPLG reported that police confiscated a camera form one of their photographers and later returned it.
The police statement also defended the handling of Benoit, saying he was detained because he "matched the description of one of the subjects just reported fleeing the scene and, further, because he ignored repeated commands as he quickly walked towards and entered his vehicle."

Benoit says he was following an officer's instructions to get back into his truck, only to be hauled out of it, thrown on the ground, and handcuffed shortly thereafter.

Miami Beach police say they are still investigating the fatal shooting of the driver Benoit captured on tape.
Officers stopped Raymond Herisse in his car at 4 a.m. on memorial day, but after an altercation, he sped off, police said.
A video posted on YouTube, which CNN cannot independently confirm, shows a commotion as a car moving erratically comes to a stop at an intersection.

Bystanders scatter as officers surround the car with guns drawn, and gunfire breaks out.
Herisse was killed, and four bystanders were injured by gunfire, according to police.
"We could have been killed," Davis said. "They were shooting so long, you could hear their guns clicking on empty, but they kept pulling the trigger," she said. "I think that's excessive."

[The Archet Bugle]

POLICE FOUND GUILTY


As usual, the police have acted badly. Criminals go through long trials to find out if they're deemed guilty. Police are always found guilty without trial.

Lesbo Proudfoot,
Re-instated Editor.

[Pettytyrant101]

I think part of the probem is there is (at least in my country) a complete lack of trust in the police to be either fair or impartial. The pressure on them to get results and meet stupid quotas is one factor. Another is having to enforce hugely unpopular drug laws which criminalise otherwise non-criminal minded people and makes the police a lot more enemies than they otherwise might have. And lastly there is the sense that the Police just close ranks when under fire and hide everything.
My father worked for a time as the Clerk of Court and has never been a criminal of any sort in his life being a solid upstanding member of society, a mason and President of the Bowling Association. After a few weeks in court he was telling me how the officers were secretly meeting before the Court cases to 'compare their reports and notebooks' -somethng which is supposed to be illegal. One of the reasons in my youth why I never did complain about the smashing through my door incident is that not only did I not think it would not get anywhere but I thought it would only make things far worse for me and lead to more victimisation, not less. Maybe its different elsewhere.

[Gandalf's Beard]

I think part of the probem is there is (at least in my country) a complete lack of trust in the police to be either fair or impartial. The pressure on them to get results and meet stupid quotas is one factor. Another is having to enforce hugely unpopular drug laws which criminalise otherwise non-criminal minded people and makes the police a lot more enemies than they otherwise might have. And lastly there is the sense that the Police just close ranks when under fire and hide everything.
My father worked for a time as the Clerk of Court and has never been a criminal of any sort in his life being a solid upstanding member of society, a mason and President of the Bowling Association. After a few weeks in court he was telling me how the officers were secretly meeting before the Court cases to 'compare their reports and notebooks' -somethng which is supposed to be illegal. One of the reasons in my youth why I never did complain about the smashing through my door incident is that not only did I not think it would not get anywhere but I thought it would only make things far worse for me and lead to more victimisation, not less. Maybe its different elsewhere.

It's the same here too.

But we know Odo's a good cop (in real life), which means there are some good cops who would never support such underhanded tactics.


GB

[Pettytyrant101]

"But we know Odo's a good cop (in real life),"- GB

That's kind of what worries me. I agree, from every interaction I have had with Orwell (I'll keep Odo seperate!), from what he says and how he reasons he is a decent person and a good cop. But (and I don't know the laws in OZ so for arguements sake I'm transposing Scottish law there) if I was for example sitting at my keyboard, in my own house, chatting away, but I was say smoking a joint. And Orwell, as part of his job had to smash through my door and arrest me for it, I assume he would rather than risk losing his job, whether he agrees with it or not. He may well agree with the arguments fo why it should be legal. He may have decided for himself the War on Drugs is causing more harm than good and making his job harder than it should be. He may feel the law is politically motivated rather than criminally motivated, or he may even indulge himself in private. But he would still arrest me. And thats where I have an issue with many police on an individual level. If my job invovled carrying out an action I was opposed to by reason or personnal morality I would not do it. Now Orwell might not be opposed to the drug laws, I'm just using it as an example of a common activity that is nevertheless illegal, but I am sure there have been times when he has had to go through with some process without necessarily feeling it was either fair or just. And I think this is important because if good cop Orwell arrests me in my eyes he is no longer a good cop, and in this way the police have made themselves unpopular by allowing themselves to enforce unpopular laws without dissension or argument.