Big Tony leaving in June...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271192,00.html

...will Gordon Brown fit in George Bush's lap?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271192,00.html

...will Gordon Brown fit in George Bush's lap?

---

Depends on whether or not he(Bush) still has his hard-on for Tony.
He(Gordon) might have to learn how to twirl.:naughty:

OUCH!!

I don't think George will get on with Gordon all that well.

Incidentally, They reckon Blair could make up to £40 million in the next year. Not bad...

I don't think Bush and Brown will get on that well. Brown has an air of arrogance and superiority complex about him that will make him despise but humour Bush because he has to.

Do you think Blair did a good job?

Whatever good he did, he will inevitably be remembered for all the bad things like the Iraq war, cash for honours scandal, foot and mouth crisis, fuel crisis, etc. Throughout it all I think he tried to portray himself as an honourable man, who stuck by his principals. He did some good things such as generating a stable economy (or should that credit go to Brown?!), getting the 2012 olympics, being a stand-up leader in times of crisis like the 7/7 bombings.

I think I actually quite liked the guy - not in a :ghey: way obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by popopot

I don't think Bush and Brown will get on that well. Brown has an air of arrogance and superiority complex about him that will make him despise but humour Bush because he has to.

Do you think Blair did a good job?

Whatever good he did, he will inevitably be remembered for all the bad things like the Iraq war, cash for honours scandal, foot and mouth crisis, fuel crisis, etc. Throughout it all I think he tried to portray himself as an honourable man, who stuck by his principals. He did some good things such as generating a stable economy (or should that credit go to Brown?!), getting the 2012 olympics, being a stand-up leader in times of crisis like the 7/7 bombings.

I think I actually quite liked the guy - not in a :ghey: way obviously.

---

Perhaps then Bush will curl up in Brown's lap, bidden or not. :P

Say what you will about Bush, he is not pretentious; Lord knows, he has no reason to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Say what you will about Bush, he is not pretentious; Lord knows, he has no reason to be.

---

That doesn't really make any sense. If I take your meaning correctly.

Pretentious is generally taken to mean something like demanding an undeserved position of distinction. So if you are saying that he is not pretentious then you are saying either that he doesn't claim a position of merit, or that if he does, then he deserves it. Unless that is what you mean. But that makes "he has no reason to be" seem out of place. "He has no need to be" would make sense, given your use of the word "pretentious".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizard Scuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Say what you will about Bush, he is not pretentious; Lord knows, he has no reason to be.

---

That doesn't really make any sense. If I take your meaning correctly.

Pretentious is generally taken to mean something like demanding an undeserved position of distinction. So if you are saying that he is not pretentious then you are saying either that he doesn't claim a position of merit, or that if he does, then he deserves it. Unless that is what you mean. But that makes "he has no reason to be" seem out of place. "He has no need to be" would make sense, given your use of the word "pretentious".

---

I am quite happy to inform you of your complete misapprehension of my meaning.

Aren't you relieved. :dabs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizard Scuff

That doesn't really make any sense. If I take your meaning correctly.

Pretentious is generally taken to mean something like demanding an undeserved position of distinction. So if you are saying that he is not pretentious then you are saying either that he doesn't claim a position of merit, or that if he does, then he deserves it. Unless that is what you mean. But that makes "he has no reason to be" seem out of place. "He has no need to be" would make sense, given your use of the word "pretentious".

---

I am quite happy to inform you of your complete misapprehension of my meaning.

Aren't you relieved. :dabs:

---

Not really until you enlighten me on said true meaning.

I predict a lack of sleep.

Man he's a prick, but there still aint anyone better to take over.
If he didn't have his head stuck up Bush's ass he would av still been going strong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizard Scuff

That doesn't really make any sense. If I take your meaning correctly.

Pretentious is generally taken to mean something like demanding an undeserved position of distinction. So if you are saying that he is not pretentious then you are saying either that he doesn't claim a position of merit, or that if he does, then he deserves it. Unless that is what you mean. But that makes "he has no reason to be" seem out of place. "He has no need to be" would make sense, given your use of the word "pretentious".

---

I am quite happy to inform you of your complete misapprehension of my meaning.

Aren't you relieved. :dabs:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizard Scuff

Not really until you enlighten me on said true meaning.

I predict a lack of sleep.

---

It's quite simple-

Pretense is affect, is it not?

Sometimes this affect is practiced by a person of accomplishment and substance...sometimes it is not.

Bush is certainly not of the intellectual elite, nor can he boast of a life of singular achievement; at least he doesn't pretend, as does, say, John Kerry, who is a completely empty suit.

How about your Mr. Brown?