bloodhound Posted July 21, 2004 Posted July 21, 2004 I absolutely love those debates. Tony Blair does a really splendid job of defending his position. He is very witty, and can think very fast on his feet. and he enjoys bringing up dirt on the opposition. And so is Michael Howard(opposition leader). I loved his performance against Gordon Brown(Chancellor of the Exchequer). during the last budget. And I find the Booing and Shouting of the BackBenchers very amusing as well. What a great tradition. I wonder how GWBush would stand up to this style of unrehearsed grilling.
atinymonkey Posted July 21, 2004 Posted July 21, 2004 Not too well I guess. There's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says fool me once, shame on..... shame on you.... and fool me we can't get fooled again - George Bush[/quOTE]
atinymonkey Posted July 21, 2004 Posted July 21, 2004 Actually, Tony Blair reminds me of Alan B'stard a little to much. Especially his presentation style.
atinymonkey Posted July 21, 2004 Posted July 21, 2004 Linking forbidden remote? Forbidden remote linking? Remote forbidden linking? Linking remote forbidden? How are those eyes? Do they hurt in the rain? Where did you put your books on the train? Hurry man, Elvis is waiting.
atinymonkey Posted July 21, 2004 Posted July 21, 2004 Normally to save time and general confusion, people construct sentances with both a subject and a predicate.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 21, 2004 Posted July 21, 2004 The little picture said "remote linking forbidden"
JaKiri Posted July 21, 2004 Posted July 21, 2004 Not here it doesn't. Oh, and Tony Blair generally got ripped to pieces against Hague.
bloodhound Posted July 21, 2004 Author Posted July 21, 2004 that was ages ago. he is more experienced now
JaKiri Posted July 21, 2004 Posted July 21, 2004 that was ages ago. he is more experienced now He had been PM for 4 years at the time. You'd think decades in politics, being leader of the party for 7 and PM for over half of that would have given him the ability to think on his feet. Personally, I feel it was because Hague was an exceptionally good speaker.
JaKiri Posted July 21, 2004 Posted July 21, 2004 He was employing the tactic that the Democrats were using to such great effect of 'Say and do nothing'.
bloodhound Posted July 21, 2004 Author Posted July 21, 2004 if he was such a good tactician, why was need for a new leadership?
JaKiri Posted July 21, 2004 Posted July 21, 2004 if he was such a good tactician, why was need for a new leadership? Because, aside from doing things which the public actively hates, such as announcing an extra 50% tax increase, it's the worst possible tactic imaginable.
bloodhound Posted July 21, 2004 Author Posted July 21, 2004 oh well. i like mikal hoard. hes really funny when he speaks. and his finger pointing and stuff. love him
Dave Posted July 21, 2004 Posted July 21, 2004 oh well. i like mikal hoard. hes really funny when he speaks. and his finger pointing and stuff. love him I personally think he's a tit. And a bloody big one at that. Stupid idiot tried to bring in poll tax.
JaKiri Posted July 22, 2004 Posted July 22, 2004 I think he got a bit upset when he found out that he was no longer the most authoritarian home secretary in the last 50 years.
Dave Posted July 22, 2004 Posted July 22, 2004 And as far as the debates are concerned, I was quite upset when John Smith died and Blair took over. He was like a breath of fresh air for the Labour party and I heard some absolutely cracking debates when he was there.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now