Discussion in 'North' started by jedi_master_booth, Oct 29, 2005.
i agree.....chicago town pizzas om nom nom.......and disney landddddddd
love that place
LOL, only just got this thread...I read "PM" as private message and it has been rather puzzling until now!
Lol, if i was the PM i would send messages...Privatly
i have the feeling i keep putting my foot in it - if i over step the mark please tell me to shut up !
Maybe not overstepping the mark as such but maybe read through what you've written then have a brew come back read again and then post after any amendments have been made.
Never post whilst frustrated or wound up especially if it's over a subject that irks you. I've done that in e.mails at work and it tends not to go down too well.
but it was an over patriotic american not us....
if i was pm id lower beer prices and make all criminals pay for thier celss if they cant pay they work hard labour like road building etc.....
Speaking as a Yank, I love you limies!
It doesn't bother me what anyone says about my President. You know why? His name isn't Chirac.
What I am curious about is this - just how much power (immediate) does the PM have? How much of the policy is his personal creation and not just the ideas of the behind-the-scenes guys? If policies are not the actual original thought of the PM, then isn't the PM just a figurehead who is fed the info? What if the wrong info is given - Blair claims to some extent this is what happened over the WMD - I remember just before the Iraqi war, Blair came forward on TV and said the US has got definite info on the fact that Iraq is hiding WMD and they know where they are, yet the WMD were never found. No one likes a dictator, and Saddam is a nasty piece of work no doubt, but how much were we "manipulated" by his opponents who wanted to regain power for themselves - the West sees deomcracy as the be-all and end-all of life (as do I) - the right to vote or not, the right to pick or not pick a candidate - that was obviously not something happening in Iraq in Saddam's reign. But the Middle East is a difficult place, there is a lot of manipulation of Westerners who see things in purely black and white - who are the "good guys" out there? Who is open to bribery, in poverty stricken countries like Iraq? I just wonder who is pulling the wool over who's eyes. We see an clear enemy, but we don't see those waiting in the wings.
Having met a lot of Americans, I can safetly tell you they are not a bunch of dumb people. They are very much like us. And we have enough dumb people in the UK before we start aiming abuse their way lol. Chavs are a disease (I'd say mental illness, or lack of mental ability aka deficiency, but you'll get upset)
I have learnt one thing from chatting to them, for me it is often more important to abstain from voting if there isn't a good choice of candidates, I said this on another forum, and the response I got back would say to me this isn't the done thing in the US - it was Joe partly involved in that. I can understand why, the armed forces need support (they deserve as much), and by voting you are in a sense supporting them. And if I were honest Joe, I would have voted Kerry as I agree with you - given the chance, I would have voted in the Presidential Elections (such as they are a huge thing). I was very annoyed when in the US at one advert for the elections - it was Vietnam war veterans who weren't happy with Kerry (I don't believe it was ever proven that he didn't deserve the medals he got, but his anti-war stance later made him many enemies) - but I can't believe the veterans would back a man who refused to fight/got himself out of the war - ie Bush - over a man who at least did his time. The other thing I noticed different between the UK and the US - once the elections in the US were over, people were told to support the President fully now he had been elected - whereas over here people will continue to not believe in/support Blair despite his election win - that is a UK/US difference I noticed. Partriotism is different, the Americans believe in backing fully the winner, the UK believes that it has the right to continue to follow their own party. Of course in times of need, both countries have that spirit where all different political backgrounds forget differences, and back those in charge. Until those in charge make a hash of it.
I wouldn't want to be PM - I have no idea of how to run this country, there is no right way of doing it, as Blair found out - and what makes me sick about the current Labour is that fact they think they can gloss over everything, that morals go out the window if the MPs are allegedly good at their job - the fabric of our society must be upheld, selfish marriage wreckers should not be governing over us! Blair has found that he can't wave a magic wand, the world doesn't work like that, and blaming previous governments just doesn't work. But the public should also get a grip on reality. You can't have an uptopia where everything is free, because money doesn't grow on trees - for good services you need taxes, tax people too much and they are unhappy. I could never lie to the pu
I see Tony Blair on the news and think to myself, why does he still want this job?!!
I do however belive that he enjoys his job to some extent.
To be in the limelight however brings its own issues, especially the way that the media has its own powermongers with their own agendas.
Blair and Bush both have those issues, hence why people get passionate about what they hear.
Facts though...are few and far between. The big fact here though as I see it is that war is the real crime. As always, there will be Generals and Troops.
he gets nice holidays and cars with our tax money while we have to wait years for some operations
i am on a two year waiting list to find out what food allergies i have..so i just need to try and not eat something im allergic to before then....
yet if i was on herione id get methadone asap....thiers something not right thier....
id abolish the house of peers....
titles passe don to inbreed idiots does not equal a wise decision...especially when they get the say on what laws are passed...
I'm with you on the druggies in rehab Susan. Donno why they get so much help. I think that anyone who is found to be addicted should be locked in a room untill they detox and have got over the cold turkey. No help, (In the way of drugs to ween them off it) Just care and attention.
Then that person should be monitered. If they get back on the drugs, they go back into rehab. I doubt they'll wanna go through that every few months.
i agree with that definatly if they make it nasty then they wont do it. the get on methodone n stuff but hten they either take that and herion
or they get addicted to that drug instead of herion or they just sell it....
whie old people cant get the help they need...
Methadone is more adictive than heroin but it has less side effects which is why it is used.
there is a lot of research going on into the cold turkey method at the moment but really they do need help after they've kicked the habit so I would prefer a quick referal to a psychiatrist for help (but only after the habit is nearly kicked)
but we shouldnt have to pay for it.
To a degree I think we have to in this case or else they'll never get the help they need as there is no way that a druggie who is robbing to feed a habit is going to be able to afford to pay for help.
I think the way we help drug addicts needs looking at in a big way. the main cost of treatment is Methadone though, get rid of that and you get rid of a large part of the expense.
its still wrong to expect the tax payer to pay for it.
especially when we cant get what we need....
i have to pay hideous prescription charges to get inhalers that i need.
I personally feel that prescriptions should be free or at the most you pay the handling/admin charge of getting them made up at the chemist.
Why should you be made to pay for something that could potentially save your life. for example you have no money and can't afford your prescription so you take the risk and go without and subsequently have an attack you would have to be taken to hospital for it, this would end up costing substantially more than if your prescription had been covered.
It's short sighted.
it cost me 12 pound for my two inhalers......
some medicines should be free.....
our chemist got into trouble by offering cheaper alternatives...for example i was prescribed antihystamines for allergies and hay fever and my chemist said i should get the pyroten cant spell it sorry. its the exact same drug and the same amount of pills but half the price that went on alot apparently and they got into trouble for it....
Hospitals and medical help went to the dogs the day it became a business. Fact is the No1 priority is to make money, The healing is just preserving their client base.