In just 15 minutes, they have shown reports of:

The US president effectively letting off one of his staff after he committed
perjury, endangered the life or a CIA agent and ruined the career and life
of the same operative. He did this because her husband objected to the Iraq
war.

Harriet Harmen (sp?) flatly deny she said Labour should apologise for the
Iraq war. The clip of her saying this was then played. Ms Harmen did not
appear for interview.

Monsanto wriggling out of significant liabilities for polluting a quarry.
The environment agency aren't bothering to lodge a claim against them. I
wonder if this is because they (Monsanto) contribute to Labour?


What I saw, is not only two corrupt administrations, but people in power
thumbing their noses at democracy. This, despite media exposure.

Why do they get away with this? Because voters are basically stupid.

"Schrodinger" <no> wrote in message
news:6105
> In just 15 minutes, they have shown reports of:
>
> The US president effectively letting off one of his staff after he
committed
> perjury, endangered the life or a CIA agent and ruined the career and life
> of the same operative. He did this because her husband objected to the
Iraq
> war.

Who gives two hoots about about American morons ?


>
> Harriet Harmen (sp?) flatly deny she said Labour should apologise for the
> Iraq war. The clip of her saying this was then played. Ms Harmen did not
> appear for interview.

The lying Tory Spivette Teresa May claimed in the Commons that Harman
said the Governement should aplogise. Got that ? The "Government".
Starts with a letter "G" . In fact the clip showed that Harman said the
[ Labour ] "Party" should apologise. Got that ? Starts with a letter
"P". Spot the difference ?

The fact that BBC muppets like Martha "Soppy" Carney or Gavin "Funny Mouth"
Estler don't know the difference between "G" and "P" either when it suits
them comes as no real surprise.

That's what they're paid for. To bamboozle the likes of you.

Anyway thanks for the chance to revisit Gordons Browns total demolition
of Martha Carney, Evan Davies, Nick Robinson, and John Simpson
on the PM's questions special on the Newsnight website. Totally on
top of his brief, smiling, responsive totally conversant with every nuance
of their feeble attempts at argument. Having been steeped in politics since
the age of 17 - unlike the amateur Blair - you lot are going to have to get
used to a teflon competent Gordon calling the shots for the next 20 years
or so.

His flawless performance in the Commons - announcing reforms he's
been formulating and honing for years was again flawless. Nice to
see Cameron has baldy Haige back sitting next to him on the Tory front
bench too. The f*cking A team is back in Town! <snigger>


>
> What I saw, is not only two corrupt administrations, but people in power
> thumbing their noses at democracy. This, despite media exposure.


Harman didn't contradict herself. That's a Tory lie.

There was no corruption there.


>
> Why do they get away with this? Because voters are basically stupid.
>
You speak for yourself chum.

In the meantime, are you going to apologise for lying about Harriet Harman ?

No ? Thought not.


michael adams

.....

"michael adams" <mjadams27> wrote in message
news:dqu1
[..]
> You speak for yourself chum.
>
> In the meantime, are you going to apologise for lying about Harriet Harman
> ?
> No ? Thought not.
>> michael adams
>
> ....

You're known on here as a troll, michael. Your views are not serious and
you change the subject when shown to be wrong.

On Jul 4, 6:23 pm, "Schrodinger" <n> wrote:
[..]
>>
>>
> You're known on here as a troll, michael. Your views are not serious and
> you change the subject when shown to be wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In all fairness I was under the impression that
it tends to be defence mandarins, and war wonks
at the MoD, who advise any government on going
to war.

One of those where being elected has nothing to
do with it. And, similarly, junior politicians,
out to make names for themselves, often do just
say what they're told to say by the more senior
party members guiding and advising them.

There is perhaps an element of "caveat orator",
but in general I take it this is what "dumbing-
down" is all about in practice. And coverage is
pretty limited in the depths of its analyses by
the complexity of the situations as they unfold
meaning: dumb politicians => dumb politics =>
dumb coverage.

NB elements of this progression may be circular,
i.e., solipsistic. No firm seriality is implied.

G DAEB

COPYRIGHT (C) 2007 SIPSTON
--