http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271192,00.html
...will Gordon Brown fit in George Bush's lap?
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.
Perhaps then Bush will curl up in Brown's lap, bidden or not. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by popopot
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard ScuffThat doesn't really make any sense. If I take your meaning correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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".
Aren't you relieved. :dabs:
Not really until you enlighten me on said true meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4I am quite happy to inform you of your complete misapprehension of my meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard Scuff
Aren't you relieved. :dabs:
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 j2k4I am quite happy to inform you of your complete misapprehension of my meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard Scuff
Aren't you relieved. :dabs:
It's quite simple-Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard Scuff
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?
So not explaining it then.
Fair enough.
???Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard Scuff
Oh, well.
How about "He has no claim to be", would that suit you at all (at all).
Sounds like Paris Hilton won't have to serve her full 45 days.
I can't see any reason why we shouldn't get early release too.
"You can't always get what you want" - Mick JaggerQuote:
Originally Posted by lynx
How can one have a claim to be pretentious.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4???Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard Scuff
Oh, well.
How about "He has no claim to be", would that suit you at all (at all).
You've gone and mixed your verb (claim) with my noun ("claim") again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard ScuffHow can one have a claim to be pretentious.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
No, I think you'll find you misused the word "pretentious".Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4You've gone and mixed your verb (claim) with my noun ("claim") again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard Scuff
Everything after that is just your wriggling (verb).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard Scuff
Okay, there it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
'Splain my mis-step.
If you can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
It's quite simple-Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard Scuff
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?
Apparently a criticism of Mr Brown doing the rounds in Westminster is "the trouble with Gordon is that he is all substance" a reference to Blair being style over substance.
Gordon is a rather dour son of the manse given to presbyterian brooding and is considered a bit of an intellectual heavyweight. Can't see why he and George will not get on :) To be fair George might be quite comfortable with Gordon's sterner Protestant outlook - but it will be a different relationship.
Recent television appearances have seen Gordon being bright and cheerful. I thought this might be rather pained but he seems to be doing it quite well, so he may yet be in with a chance of winning in 2009.
So Bush really is just a good ole boy, raised on a Texas dirt farm, educated in a one room school, a war hero who represents middle class American values?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
That damn liberal media...
That would be news to me; I don't partake of "That damn liberal media".Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerSo Bush really is just a good ole boy, raised on a Texas dirt farm, educated in a one room school, a war hero who represents middle class American values?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
That damn liberal media...
Hmmm.
I just now occurred to me to ask what Gordon Brown's middle initial might be.
I hope it's "W". :naughty:
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4That would be news to me; I don't partake of "That damn liberal media".Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Hmmm.
I just now occurred to me to ask what Gordon Brown's middle initial might be.
I hope it's "W". :naughty:
I think it's P for Pretentious:whistling
No mis-use of the word, then. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxOverlordQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I think it's P for Pretentious:whistling
the phrase "Big Tony" made me chuckle.
he's leaving, yeah, i'll miss him about as much as any of our other world leaders i guess.
My evaluation of Tony's reign
All truths are positive and all lies are negative. This is well known by Politicians... and a certain mathematician. Politicians first tell all the lies they need to, to be voted into office. When in office they continue to lie. Mathematicians know how it works, two negatives make a positive and positives are truths..
This following the time proved and thus universal law, otherwise known as equation,
- x - = + (truth)
therefore...
lies x lies = Truth
It's obvious then, all Tony has to do is make sure the number of lies remain even in number. ( and add a few XXXX)He would be wise to take that mathematician into employment, who is also aware of Quantum Politics, to help make it all "un-happen", because after the *27 th some people could just start counting, and discover it's a prime number.
* although 27 is an unequal number, and appears ominous, it is divisible a number of times ( true an odd number of times too,... but we can get round that using a little geometry and algebra)
Quote:
Originally Posted by thewizeard
Should I be worrying about you?
Are you David Cameron?Quote:
Originally Posted by thewizeard
Tony started ok, then met Bush. Tits up from then on. i'd hate to think what would've happened if Willy Hague or khn Smith got in power. Or that vampire one, cant remember his name.
Ithink at the time we got the best of the bunch.
Gordon Brown.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/gor...FRYVEAodL38zmg
How Gordon Brown voted on key issues since 2001:
* Has never voted on a transparent Parliament.
* Moderately for introducing a smoking ban.
* Strongly for introducing ID cards.
* Very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals.
* Very strongly for introducing student top-up fees.
* Moderately for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
* Very strongly for the Iraq war.
* Moderately against investigating the Iraq war.
* Moderately for the fox hunting ban.
* Has never voted on equal gay rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizard Scuff
Good info and link.
He must have been off fox hunting when all the gay rights votes were cast.
Correct me if I'm wrong but according to the vote tally (of the link you provided) he voted against the declaration for war and the case for war. How is that voting strongly for war?
Good stuff Scuff.
It bothers me that he automatically becomes PM. After i learnt about the whole pension blackhole he knew about, he lost all my trust.
We are in for a odd few months. When does he get power?