Us Vetoes Condemnation Of Israel

[j2k4]

Fair enough.

You do totally misunderstand the term neo-con, but as you have no interest anyway, I'll not bore you with the explanation, which even I find stultifying.

[Biggles]

J2

I have often wondered (well at least a couple of times) what the tern "Silent Majority" means.

As far as I can see all politicians of every hue claim their silent acquiesence as support of their particular point of view.

As far as I can tell, all this silent majority really want is to not to be poorer tomorrow than they are today (this applies to all forms of wealth including social and cultural)...






....Oh, and for all politicians to take a running leap.



Perhaps the "alienated majority" would be a better moniker.

Edit: Tidying up by adding a couple of missing words.

[lynx]

Originally posted by Biggles@29 March 2004 - 19:16
As far as I can see all politicians of every hue claim their silent acquiesence as support their particular point of view.

As far as I can tell, all this silent majority really want is to not to be poorer tomorrow than they are today (this applies to all forms of wealth including social and cultural)...






....Oh, and for all politicians to a running leap.



Perhaps the "alienated majority" would be a better moniker.

It puzzles me how anyone can claim to have the support of the so-called silent majority, or indeed know what it is that they want.

If this were the case, they could hardly be called the silent majority, since for either of the above to be true they would have had to express their opionion and consequently no longer be silent.

"Alienated majority" they may be, but the only way to know is again if they express their opinion, be it verbal or in some ballot or other, and as soon as they do that they no longer fall into the category.

I suspect a more accurate description might be "the unheard majority", I doubt whether they are silent, just powerless enough to be ignored by most politicians.

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by j2k4@29 March 2004 - 19:24
If I were to pronounce on your country as you do on mine, I'd have to go all the way back to Uncle Winnie, and look how you treated him!

I think the biggest difference is if anyone takesa shot at the UK we don't take it personally. I'm pretty sure that the majority of folk here know our countrys shortcomings, we tend to laugh about it rather than take it as if they insulted our grandmother.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by mrcall1969+29 March 2004 - 16:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrcall1969 @ 29 March 2004 - 16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@29 March 2004 - 19:24
If I were to pronounce on your country as you do on mine, I&#39;d have to go all the way back to Uncle Winnie, and look how you treated him&#33;

I think the biggest difference is if anyone takesa shot at the UK we don&#39;t take it personally. I&#39;m pretty sure that the majority of folk here know our countrys shortcomings, we tend to laugh about it rather than take it as if they insulted our grandmother. [/b][/quote]
What the hell does that have to do with the price of sliced bread?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by mrcall1969+29 March 2004 - 14:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mrcall1969 &#064; 29 March 2004 - 14:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@29 March 2004 - 19:24
If I were to pronounce on your country as you do on mine, I&#39;d have to go all the way back to Uncle Winnie, and look how you treated him&#33;

I think the biggest difference is if anyone takesa shot at the UK we don&#39;t take it personally. I&#39;m pretty sure that the majority of folk here know our countrys shortcomings, we tend to laugh about it rather than take it as if they insulted our grandmother.[/b][/quote]
I&#39;m a bit puzzled at this.

This is a discussion/debate venue; at least, that&#39;s what it&#39;s supposed to be, I think.

I can&#39;t recall an instance, on the one hand, when I&#39;ve ever dismissed the U.K. and it&#39;s politics, culture or social mores as a load of bollocks, but if I had, I&#39;d expect a righteously offended response.

About as close as I&#39;ve come was on those occasions where I&#39;ve inferred a bias on the part of the Beeb or something, and that is usually sufficient to get the collective spine of it&#39;s fans bent just about double.

On the other hand, though, I get some hellacious responses whenever I try to defend the U.S.

On the recent threads having to do with the Madrid bombings, merely tippy-toeing around the edges of the issue was sufficient to set off a good number of our U.K. board members.

Of course, in light of all these circumstances, I suppose I would be remiss if I actually questioned the self-effacing characteristics of our neighbors across the pond, eh?

You lot are the least confrontational bunch I&#39;ve ever run up against.

Of course, that&#39;s probably just me.

Biggles & Lynx-

I would define the Silent Majority as those who vote without fail, but have jobs and other responsibilities that preclude marching, picketing or otherwise engaging in demonstration or rhetorical exercise.

These are the types who are responsible for the occasional walloping the Republicans give the Dems in presidential elections (see Reagan/1984) that the domestic and foreign press fail to predict beforehand, or understand afterward.

[Busyman]

I don&#39;t think Marc is going to respond.
He has said goodbye in the I Rest My Case thread.

Good points either way though.

[Rat Faced]

I can&#39;t recall an instance, on the one hand, when I&#39;ve ever dismissed the U.K. and it&#39;s politics, culture or social mores as a load of bollocks, but if I had, I&#39;d expect a righteously offended response.

I do quite often.

Usually, a lot of the Brits agree with me.

We will fight for something worth fighting for (eg Aunty Beeb).... Blaire and Co arent worth the effort of typing in agreement with the crap thrown their way though

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@30 March 2004 - 05:15

I can&#39;t recall an instance, on the one hand, when I&#39;ve ever dismissed the U.K. and it&#39;s politics, culture or social mores as a load of bollocks, but if I had, I&#39;d expect a righteously offended response.

I do quite often.

Usually, a lot of the Brits agree with me.

We will fight for something worth fighting for (eg Aunty Beeb).... Blaire and Co arent worth the effort of typing in agreement with the crap thrown their way though

Aye, and I think you do it with a reasonably well-developed sense of propriety, Rat.

I wonder, though, at the implication that we in the U.S. are so hyper-sensitive.

We are surely the most oft-criticized; it only stands to reason that we defend ourselves in such cases.

The shoe is not often on the other foot.

[trillscout]

B4 any of you guys speak on this issue read Hemogony or survival by Howard Zinn

1.to be basic, Israel is the US&#39;s bitch. US gives Israel billions of dollars in military aid and other stuff. So don&#39;t think this "assaination" wasn&#39;t okayed by the US.

2. Don&#39;t people learn. Violence doesn&#39;t end violence. We learned that in grade school.

3. What country in their right mind shoots missles to kill ONE person in a WHEELCHAIR. What happened to the good ol&#39;sniper? Obviously they have money to spend- oh that&#39;s right. It&#39;s not even their money.

4. Israel&#39;s army occoupies the land. They have Paletenians in camps. Scattered across the land. Similar way germany had other countries. It doesn&#39;t matter people with absolute power always act the same.

btw Israel has an army. Palestine doesn&#39;t have one so when they fight they choose to call them "terrorists"

back to gaming...