Northern Ireland kick's off again

[Rat Faced]

I disagree J2,

It shows that he didnt consider them important.

If it was malice, he would have been actively making things worse rather than ignoring the problem.

From the coincidence in the aftermath, this may have been the case.. however it is not likely, he'd have had to work at the timings... work is something he is not strong on.

It would be much more likely to be someone less senior in the administration that was stage managing it all.

[j2k4]

I disagree J2,

It shows that he didnt consider them important.

If it was malice, he would have been actively making things worse rather than ignoring the problem.

From the coincidence in the aftermath, this may have been the case.. however it is not likely, he'd have had to work at the timings... work is something he is not strong on.

It would be much more likely to be someone less senior in the administration that was stage managing it all.

You mean you've never ascribed a quality of evil to Bush?

I think you just don't want to have to stop calling him stupid, and any discussion of matters evil could quickly gain a religious aspect which would surely turn sour.

[Rat Faced]

I dont mind saying that i think he's evil.

If i was Christian the word "anti-christ" would probably come from my lips.

Rape, Murder, Treason, Fraud.. all things he is alleged to have done in the past, and amazingly the claimants all die, disappear or are ignored.

He never has to go to court over the allegations himself, always "a friend" stepping up to say "I did it" when it looks like he may have to.

[j2k4]

Rape, Murder, Treason, Fraud.. all things he is alleged to have done in the past, and amazingly the claimants all die, disappear or are ignored.

He never has to go to court over the allegations himself, always "a friend" stepping up to say "I did it" when it looks like he may have to.

I thought we were talking about Bush, not Clinton...

[JPaul]

It's not a person, it's a group of people, I linked to it earlier.

They made a decision, which one group disagreed with and brought violence to the streets. It was their decision to make and it appears to be a fair and reasonable compromise. I can think of no earthly reason why they (or any one of them) would be expected to resign, under these circumstances.

If a group in the US asked for permission to have an "anti-black" march, thro a predominantly black area and the powers that be said "No, sorry, that's inflamatory likely to cause offence and possibly trouble. The march must be held elsewhere", would you expect them (the decision makers) to then resign, if the marchers became violent over the decision.

Yes, yes, but what about the sarcastic view?

Sorry, I thought you were staying on-topic and that it was a serious question.

My bad.

[Rat Faced]

Rape, Murder, Treason, Fraud.. all things he is alleged to have done in the past, and amazingly the claimants all die, disappear or are ignored.

He never has to go to court over the allegations himself, always "a friend" stepping up to say "I did it" when it looks like he may have to.

I thought we were talking about Bush, not Clinton...

As i've said many many times...

The difference is only one of degree.

[j2k4]

I thought we were talking about Bush, not Clinton...

As i've said many many times...

The difference is only one of degree.

And ordering, I think.