PDA

View Full Version : Ebola Vs...



revelarts
10-16-2014, 09:32 PM
https://scontent-2.2914.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10686723_10152447063963977_63410185641550077_n.jpg ?oh=60102c1e3773f0631bcf3c074464bbab&oe=54B3A682
This yes....


and not only that but we can add
Heart Disease...
Car Accidents...
Heck "accidental" murders by police.
etc etc etc...


You know it seems every 2 years or so we have a disease scare in the media.

H1N1 - Bird Flu
Mad Cow Disease - Bovine Virus
Sars
Swine Flu
Anthrax
AIDS

All Horrific diseases but thankfully not zombie apocalypse level trouble.

Gaffer
10-16-2014, 09:42 PM
The media won't let a crisis go to waste. If things slow down, stir the pot and turn up the heat.

fj1200
10-17-2014, 09:30 AM
But only one is a BO/Globalist plot against right-thinking Amurikans! :eek:

Drummond
10-17-2014, 11:16 AM
But only one is a BO/Globalist plot against right-thinking Amurikans! :eek:

... oh dear. Someone's at all likely to be too critical of Obama, according to you ?

A little reminder, FJ ... according to you, 'BO sucks'.

Except when he doesn't, of course ...

Consistency never was your strong point.

fj1200
10-17-2014, 11:52 AM
... oh dear. Someone's at all likely to be too critical of Obama, according to you ?

A little reminder, FJ ... according to you, 'BO sucks'.

Except when he doesn't, of course ...

Consistency never was your strong point.

He does suck. Just like you suck at recognizing sarcasm.

Drummond
10-17-2014, 03:06 PM
He does suck. Just like you suck at recognizing sarcasm.

No matter, FJ. I'll just wait for you to reveal your pro-Obama sympathies again, be it from direct proof of a position you hold, or, an indirect proof where you counter someone else's anti-Obama argument, from whatever excuse you can think of to do so.

I suspect I'll not have very long to wait.

Trigg
10-17-2014, 07:32 PM
https://scontent-2.2914.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10686723_10152447063963977_63410185641550077_n.jpg ?oh=60102c1e3773f0631bcf3c074464bbab&oe=54B3A682
This yes....


and not only that but we can add
Heart Disease...
Car Accidents...
Heck "accidental" murders by police.
etc etc etc...


You know it seems every 2 years or so we have a disease scare in the media.

H1N1 - Bird Flu
Mad Cow Disease - Bovine Virus
Sars
Swine


All Horrific diseases but thankfully not zombie apocalypse level trouble.

ebola isn't easily eliminated though...

It comes from infected bush meat, monkey's and bats, unfortunately it is easily transmitted when let loose in a large city. Which is exactly what has happened in Liberia.

Up until now the outbreaks have happened in small isolated villages and the transfers have been minor. Ebola is spread by body fluids and can live on hard surfaces, in an industrial city this is a major problem

fj1200
10-18-2014, 12:11 PM
No matter, FJ. I'll just wait for you to reveal your pro-Obama sympathies again, be it from direct proof of a position you hold, or, an indirect proof where you counter someone else's anti-Obama argument, from whatever excuse you can think of to do so.

I suspect I'll not have very long to wait.

With an imagination as ignorant as yours I suspect you'll see what you want to see. BTW, I don't have "pro-BO" sympathies I have anti-ignorant tendencies which must be why I have to call you out so much. :)

Gunny
10-18-2014, 12:35 PM
With an imagination as ignorant as yours I suspect you'll see what you want to see. BTW, I don't have "pro-BO" sympathies I have anti-ignorant tendencies which must be why I have to call you out so much. :)

How DARE you go against the gaggle. You must be after Obama's crank. Can't be anything else. Like you might just disagree with ignorance? No f-ing WAY.

Librull.

Shadow
10-18-2014, 12:53 PM
With an imagination as ignorant as yours I suspect you'll see what you want to see. BTW, I don't have "pro-BO" sympathies I have anti-ignorant tendencies which must be why I have to call you out so much. :)

Right Wingers are their own worst enemy. They have become such loons that they even turn other conservatives off and make them run in the other direction. :laugh:

Gunny
10-18-2014, 01:03 PM
Right Wingers are their own worst enemy. They have become such loons that they even turn other conservatives off and make them run in the other direction. :laugh:

The biggest joke to that? The people they accuse of being "librull" are more conservative than they are. They act just like the people they claim to hate.

I'm hard-ass conservative. I'm NOT hard-ass GOP. The GOP is stupid and only stupid people echo their BS. The Dems of the 70's and 80's were more conservative than the GOP is now.

Shadow
10-18-2014, 01:08 PM
The biggest joke to that? The people they accuse of being "librull" are more conservative than they are. They act just like the people they claim to hate.

I'm hard-ass conservative. I'm NOT hard-ass GOP. The GOP is stupid and only stupid people echo their BS. The Dems of the 70's and 80's were more conservative than the GOP is now.

Preaching to the choir babe. I can't stand Liberals or their agendas... but... if I am forced to contemplate defending them...you KNOW the loons on the right are WORSE. :laugh:

fj1200
10-18-2014, 01:14 PM
^Righties need to be better and not stoop to their level. One good thing about RW "loons" is at least they generally aren't demanding that government do something for them at the expense of others.

Gunny
10-18-2014, 01:14 PM
Preaching to the choir babe. I can't stand Liberals or their agendas... but... if I am forced to contemplate defending them...you KNOW the loons on the right are WORSE. :laugh:

We are both actually more conservative than the echo chamber, blind haters. I'm wondering when they get to the part where hating a political party and/or a religion is not a political belief.

But I shouldn't wonder. That's when they accuse. They have no defense for their stupid-ass sh*t so they attack like snakes in the blind.

Like I said. They're stupid. :)

revelarts
10-20-2014, 07:59 AM
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2014/293/0/f/ebola_by_orderofthenewworld-d83ih1v.jpg

Drummond
10-20-2014, 12:24 PM
With an imagination as ignorant as yours I suspect you'll see what you want to see. BTW, I don't have "pro-BO" sympathies I have anti-ignorant tendencies which must be why I have to call you out so much. :)

It's fascinating to see both your reaction, and - more curious still - the support you're getting.

FJ ... you don't 'call me out', as you put it .. not as such. Not true.

As for what you REALLY do ... as I've seen in thread after thread ... is to debate a little, then, when you think you're in danger of being bested, you resort to troll-like trickery.

Rewrites of peoples' posts ... done to disparage, mock, belittle, whatever it takes, to - in your own mind, anyway - supposedly 'win out' against the opposition you're attacking.

Perhaps the most 'interesting' feature of all this is that you reserve all this behaviour - you, the 'Conservative' - for other Conservatives on DP, such as myself. Can you name me even ONE Left-winger here you've done all this to ??

You can't .. of course not, as we both know. And yet you, yourself, profess to be a Conservative ?

What's wrong with this picture ? ... Anyone ... ?

You are the self-professed 'Thatcherite', who's had to be told fundamental facts about her !! Such as, her 'Thatcher Foundation' legacy ... I repeatedly tested you on knowledge of that before finally revealing its very EXISTENCE to you.

But here's what I'm curious about right now. If I'm 'wrong' about your being pro-Obama, as you'd like to claim ... then, of course, there will be no question of your offering him support in the future. Yes ?

So why is that an issue for you ... and why do you have contributors rushing to your defence ? If I'm talking nonsense, then I'll be proven wrong. So .... what is there to defend ??

Drummond
10-20-2014, 12:29 PM
How DARE you go against the gaggle. You must be after Obama's crank. Can't be anything else. Like you might just disagree with ignorance? No f-ing WAY.

Librull.

You know, if it weren't for the sarcasm, I think I'd agree with every word of this .....

Drummond
10-20-2014, 12:33 PM
Right Wingers are their own worst enemy. They have become such loons that they even turn other conservatives off and make them run in the other direction. :laugh:

'Other Conservatives'.

Other than what ? Other than Right wingers ?

There are Conservatives who aren't Right wing ? Apparently so.

You learn a little something every day, it seems .... tell me more ...

gabosaurus
10-20-2014, 01:30 PM
The common influenza virus is more contagious and infects/kills more people than Ebola.
Trouble is, the flu is old hat to the media and doesn't cause the amount of panic that Ebola does. If you need viewers 24/7, you need panic.

The trouble with the current GOP is that no one can figure out who is conservative. Are you a progressive conservative, a moderate conservative or a hardline conservative?
This is why the 2016 battle for the GOP nomination is going to be a bloodbath. The fight between moderate conservatives and those who side with the Tea Party is going to be much more vicious than the GOP vs. Dems battle for the White house.

fj1200
10-20-2014, 01:43 PM
:blah:

Perhaps the most 'interesting' feature of all this is that you reserve all this behaviour - you, the 'Conservative' - for other Conservatives on DP, such as myself. Can you name me even ONE Left-winger here you've done all this to ??

:blah:

You are the self-professed 'Thatcherite', who's had to be told fundamental facts about her !! Such as, her 'Thatcher Foundation' legacy ... I repeatedly tested you on knowledge of that before finally revealing its very EXISTENCE to you.

:blah:

You prattle a lot but you have no substance... but I repeat myself. You're not really even intelligent enough to know that there aren't really any left-wingers here outside of noir and gabby but I challenge them when necessary. As anyone will tell you gabby doesn't really bother to respond to any challenges and noir rarely posts but he does defend his positions well without resorting to imaginative delusions. If any other left-wingers do happen to accidentally come here you and your knuckleheads do your level best to shout them down before any rational discussion can be had.

Of course you misidentify yourself as a conservative which is why you get challenged repeatedly; no real conservative I know has as many big government positions as you. I also question the knucklehead ranticals who are unable to engage in a reasoned discussion and can only exist within their echo chamber.

And regarding your Thatcher Foundation meme, you merely asked where I learned of Mags and her record and of course one can learn of her just about anywhere. Are you so daft as to think that the TF is the only repository of all things Mags?

And FWIW, I do try and keep all debates reasoned and personable but at times it's just not possible due to the ignorance and obstinate attitudes that I encounter. :)

Raman
10-20-2014, 01:47 PM
ebola isn't easily eliminated though...
UVC or a 5.25 solution of household bleach
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php

Also, it spreads through direct contact with infected fluids, so basic hygiene and sanitation would go far.

fj1200
10-20-2014, 01:52 PM
Nigeria officially declared Ebola free - Africa - Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2014/10/nigeria-officially-declared-ebola-free-2014102010040987109.html)

Drummond
10-20-2014, 02:39 PM
Thanks for that, FJ ... a practical example of your trolling methodology .. exactly the sort of thing I was talking about.

But I still have my question: can you name even ONE Left winger you've dished out the same treatment to .. ?


You prattle a lot but you have no substance... but I repeat myself.

Yes, you do. Don't you ? You appear not to be able to help yourself despite what that says of you.


You're not really even intelligent enough to know that there aren't really any left-wingers here outside of noir and gabby but I challenge them when necessary.

Congratulations. But -- NOT as abusively as you challenge CONSERVATIVES here. By your OWN admission, if there aren't Left wingers (.. YOU say ..) here other than Noir and Gabby, that means that you attack CONSERVATIVES here.

So how come you, Mr 'Conservative', haven't found them to be natural allies ? H'm ?


If any other left-wingers do happen to accidentally come here you and your knuckleheads do your level best to shout them down before any rational discussion can be had.

- How ? Do we .... abusively rewrite their posts for them, for example ? Or is it just that YOU, alone here, reserve that for ... CONSERVATIVES ?

Remind me, again, of your CONSERVATIVE credentials ......


Of course you misidentify yourself as a conservative which is why you get challenged repeatedly; no real conservative I know has as many big government positions as you.

This 'big Government' nonsense of yours is your own invention. I challenge you to identify what 'they' are ....


I also question the knucklehead ranticals who are unable to engage in a reasoned discussion and can only exist within their echo chamber.

... say the individual who resorts to abuse at the drop of a hat !!

We even agreed, once, to ensure that no such abuse crept into a discussion. As I recall, by the third exchange, you 'broke', and the abuse started once more.

Produce ONE - just ONE - post of mine where I rewrote anything of yours ! You can't do it. Why ? Because YOU are the troll here, not me !!


And regarding your Thatcher Foundation meme, you merely asked where I learned of Mags and her record and of course one can learn of her just about anywhere. Are you so daft as to think that the TF is the only repository of all things Mags?

It's the chief one !!! It was designed to be her legacy. Any 'enthusiast' of 'Mags', as you call her, would know that. YOU did NOT.

How come, if Lady Thatcher is so easily researched, you proved that you HADN'T done that research .. ?


And FWIW, I do try and keep all debates reasoned and personable but at times it's just not possible due to the ignorance and obstinate attitudes that I encounter. :)

Your many abusive dialogues with me prove otherwise. And as we'll all know, I am far from the only person you've crossed swords with.

fj1200
10-20-2014, 02:45 PM
:blah:
:blah:
:blah:

Your many abusive dialogues with me prove otherwise. And as we'll all know, I am far from the only person you've crossed swords with.

:rolleyes: I've "crossed swords" with morons with active imaginations who are lacking in the capacity of engaging in a reasonable discussion and have the annoying habit of misidentifying lefties. Some of them claim to be conservative. ;)

And all of your questions have been answered in other threads which you've managed to run away from when the going gets tough.

revelarts
10-20-2014, 02:45 PM
Nigeria officially declared Ebola free - Africa - Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2014/10/nigeria-officially-declared-ebola-free-2014102010040987109.html)




BBC News - Ebola crisis: Nigeria declared free of virus (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29685127)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29685127 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29685127) - View by Ixquick Proxy (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/proxy?ep=475259595a69515a4e4459714b6a6451435149665 2687350556a774b4248785343546430576e6f71464651394c4 14d51554468495779774c435273464f67465444464d494c523 8486342684f5454467765796b7047486839477741375a77527 45556634448686b394e516b6a50476c4d486a4a564c6a51375 27939544e554d695541564b43565653504663484a6b734c575 26f4a5147556d4e484e4a47524d6e477a516e43514d7a4d413 44f4144736357427064476a63694f4442584f6c3874496a414 f57466f7a617939634f465a47427935685a326441556934764 54531514d6c4a4a445430776653454563466736456a3957494 66c52634455534352466145677059534255354f42684b56414 635516d466862777778436b424751464e4a647864686241705 3636855474477515a6456454f56426c7a456b412f447951424 b6b6b524569774456556c62575677635648455746303050434 36b684468774554436836466d7437635268695752594254684 a54426b68706331304351525a5a566c5a5a536878655768703 24f556f58496970485a476838633238545655464b5178453d&epile=4q6n41784r4445774q6n41784s46387n4q4335725n58 6o3q&edata=e74721136cc3c16b15ad59158ffe53ab&ek=6548346p5145676o5556684r526p346n5953523865334r7 0644639726345456p624656534o30646o66544r59586q70786 53330714r454271496r313358325231666n38315931424n4r5 434384n46564r4r6q426p567n517n534535774r6p4168647n3 976627952565158315454314r6n4q55456854305n504r30343 0554731425032686p6254703955544n7n527n68754s4768714 o4574575746556o62574r58654656544r4852575569686n644 574734r48737n66554n4458315671587n464o546p6p394q487 847566o636s54435n6n4r4739455653466p594768595n7n702 o5544417149313566553152765657703866466s685533786n4 r6o4n396533302o5032732o4s6r78615754563462546442643 14254574370456269457949573536546946515644686p52334 q79626q4639515751334q53464263334n5n503055335379687 n4n5567784q5738704o544r7661554177597n3479525831776 46p462o4o314933556n4n4s50456p48616p496o66565n31645 468555232706r496r4r7259575n6863796p7350696847&ekdata=3d98e4b950d34fcbad0db8d5d9c20572) - Highlight (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/highlight.pl?l=english&c=hf&cat=web&q=Nigeria+Ebola+free&rl=NONE&rid=MILOLNSNKQTL&hlq=https://startpage.com/do/metasearch.pl&mtcat=web&mtlanguage=english&u=http:%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld-africa-29685127)
3 hours ago ... Nigeria has been declared officially free of Ebola after six weeks with no new cases, the World Health Organization (WHO) says.

Nigeria declared Ebola-free, holds lessons for others | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/20/us-health-ebola-nigeria-idUSKCN0I90T620141020)

www.reuters.com/ (http://www.reuters.com/) article/ 2014/ 10/ 20/ us-health-ebola-nigeria-idUSKCN0I90T620141020 - View by Ixquick Proxy (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/proxy?ep=475259595a69515a4e4459714b6a6451435149665 2687350556a774b4248785343546430576e6f71464651394c4 14d51554468495779774c435273464f67465444464d494c523 8486342684f5454467765796b7047486839477741375a77527 45556634448686b394e516b6a50476c4d486a4a564c6a51375 27939544e554d695541564b43565653504663484a6b734c575 26f4a5147556d4e484e4a47524d6e477a516e43514d7a4d413 44f4144736357427064476a63694f4442584f6c3874496a414 f57466f7a617939634f465a47427935685a326441556934764 5453151496c5666567a737449486f4d4f67645a54687841495 1674b56533459586b393444567350446c6c6f4877524953415 54852574232616d777848517861524138574f6b6c394d566f4 b4b784966414167614a425a655541776f4679634b64415a356 532464b465277484131385948514a6657334157466c70544d5 2784e46575248534773465a465236585370325744455554544 a4e51413433646c6c5646304150423151465168394b5446677 063304d585a6a78586242555a46795a7547304d474e6a63775 152493656584a685357595744545155514164764f776b55535 56f6144486c6645426c4662313142544631584147563542417 34e4647456f41466748&epile=4q6n41784r4445774q6n41784s46387n4q4335725n58 6o3q&edata=8ecbbb0230a37ffa4da554917205455b&ek=6548346p5145676o5556684r526p346n5953523865334r7 0644639726345456p624656534o30646o66544r59586q70786 53330714r454271496r313358325231666n38315931424n4r5 434384n46564r4r6q426p567n517n534535774r6p4168647n3 976627952565158315454314r6n4q55456854305n504r30343 0554731425032686p6254703955544n7n527n68754s4768714 o4574575746556o62574r58654656544r4852575569686n644 574734r48737n66554n4458315671587n464o546p6p394q487 847566o636s54435n6n4r4739455653466p594768595n7n702 o5544417149313566553152765657703866466s685533786n4 r6o4n396533302o5032732o4s6r78615754563462546442643 14254574370456269457949573536546946515644686p52334 q79626q4639515751334q53464263334n5n503055335379687 n4n5567784q5738704o544r7661554177597n3479525831776 46p462o4o314933556n4n4s50456p48616p496o66565n31645 468555232706r496r4r7259575n6863796p7350696847&ekdata=6a395cf53a481b44610826037c3f3dc7) - Highlight (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/highlight.pl?l=english&c=hf&cat=web&q=Nigeria+Ebola+free&rl=NONE&rid=MILOLNSNKQTL&hlq=https://startpage.com/do/metasearch.pl&mtcat=web&mtlanguage=english&u=http:%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2014%2F10 %2F20%2Fus-health-ebola-nigeria-idUSKCN0I90T620141020)
1 hour ago ... ABUJA/LAGOS (Reuters) - Nigeria was declared free of the deadly Ebola virus on Monday after a determined doctor and thousands of officials ...

Ebola: WHO Declares Nigeria Free of Ebola - Time (http://time.com/3522984/ebola-nigeria-who/)

www.time.com/3522984/ (http://www.time.com/3522984/)ebola-nigeria-who/ - View by Ixquick Proxy (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/proxy?ep=475259595a69515a4e4459714b6a6451435149665 2687350556a774b4248785343546430576e6f71464651394c4 14d51554468495779774c435273464f67465444464d494c523 8486342684f5454467765796b7047486839477741375a77527 45556634448686b394e516b6a50476c4d486a4a564c6a51375 27939544e554d695541564b43565653504663484a6b734c575 26f4a5147556d4e484e4a47524d6e477a516e43514d7a4d413 44f4144736357427064476a63694f4442584f6c3874496a414 f57466f7a617939634f465a47427935685a326441556934734 46c6362666c4e46546e7474465764615a31684652473445595 46f4756433052476c425156677862534255376445495141684 a7a4d58596d50457377447877445277744d655246694d51786 46678454c566c4e504a774a5543454e3452424272436e55426 678684152473544515142614641424a48544d4e4c6d706a505 4414b4553737a6277734348324e72447731695752594344695 a49515138784a41395646554e5457464e54467874634278783 059687847645867565a476c39636a73565755593d&epile=4q6n41784r4445774q6n41784s46387n4q4335725n58 6o3q&edata=8954dab4541faf8c13af09514020899b&ek=6548346p5145676o5556684r526p346n5953523865334r7 0644639726345456p624656534o30646o66544r59586q70786 53330714r454271496r313358325231666n38315931424n4r5 434384n46564r4r6q426p567n517n534535774r6p4168647n3 976627952565158315454314r6n4q55456854305n504r30343 0554731425032686p6254703955544n7n527n68754s4768714 o4574575746556o62574r58654656544r4852575569686n644 574734r48737n66554n4458315671587n464o546p6p394q487 847566o636s54435n6n4r4739455653466p594768595n7n702 o5544417149313566553152765657703866466s685533786n4 r6o4n396533302o5032732o4s6r78615754563462546442643 14254574370456269457949573536546946515644686p52334 q79626q4639515751334q53464263334n5n503055335379687 n4n5567784q5738704o544r7661554177597n3479525831776 46p462o4o314933556n4n4s50456p48616p496o66565n31645 468555232706r496r4r7259575n6863796p7350696847&ekdata=5431fd2cd58a3b18c782779f48df2a12) - Highlight (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/highlight.pl?l=english&c=hf&cat=web&q=Nigeria+Ebola+free&rl=NONE&rid=MILOLNSNKQTL&hlq=https://startpage.com/do/metasearch.pl&mtcat=web&mtlanguage=english&u=http:%2F%2Ftime.com%2F3522984%2Febola-nigeria-who%2F)
16 hours ago ... For the WHO to declare Nigeria as Ebola-free, the country had to make it 42 days with no new cases (double the incubation period), verify that it ...

WHO Declares Nigeria Ebola-Free After 42 Days With No Cases ... (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/who-declares-nigeria-ebola-free-after-42-days-no-cases-n229536)

www.nbcnews.com/ (http://www.nbcnews.com/) storyline/ ebola-virus-outbreak/ who-declares-nigeria-ebola-free-after-42-days-no-cases-n229536 - View by Ixquick Proxy (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/proxy?ep=475259595a69515a4e4459714b6a6451435149665 2687350556a774b4248785343546430576e6f71464651394c4 14d51554468495779774c435273464f67465444464d494c523 8486342684f5454467765796b7047486839477741375a77527 45556634448686b394e516b6a50476c4d486a4a564c6a51375 27939544e554d695541564b43565653504663484a6b734c575 26f4a5147556d4e484e4a47524d6e477a516e43514d7a4d413 44f4144736357427064476a63694f4442584f6c3874496a414 f57466f7a617939634f465a47427935685a326441556934764 5453151506c4a4a5454736f49486f4d4f67645a546878534a7 84d5254793455465267624453316257424d324f42674f42455 530424830384c56346d48455254536b7449434659344f78554 24968426544784d594d6b6c5a5745596b41527334456942564 a4551534343354456416f45534655624444496456777766495 2774a42587751524839554d304572543251705747416453475 644553030774a6834474878454a41674251537868624442416 a596b6b5549697754615735364a4767515630464b54455a515 2326862566a4e5641795a764832455144673456436a734a4e6 7644e5467307565306736446b46474f686f474a33593652514 d49457a417555314a535a77774b66587755424741595177304 e445564676355786d666d4e585648635a4c513d3d&epile=4q6n41784r4445774q6n41784s46387n4q4335725n58 6o3q&edata=789597dabe3ea689811363661a24851a&ek=6548346p5145676o5556684r526p346n5953523865334r7 0644639726345456p624656534o30646o66544r59586q70786 53330714r454271496r313358325231666n38315931424n4r5 434384n46564r4r6q426p567n517n534535774r6p4168647n3 976627952565158315454314r6n4q55456854305n504r30343 0554731425032686p6254703955544n7n527n68754s4768714 o4574575746556o62574r58654656544r4852575569686n644 574734r48737n66554n4458315671587n464o546p6p394q487 847566o636s54435n6n4r4739455653466p594768595n7n702 o5544417149313566553152765657703866466s685533786n4 r6o4n396533302o5032732o4s6r78615754563462546442643 14254574370456269457949573536546946515644686p52334 q79626q4639515751334q53464263334n5n503055335379687 n4n5567784q5738704o544r7661554177597n3479525831776 46p462o4o314933556n4n4s50456p48616p496o66565n31645 468555232706r496r4r7259575n6863796p7350696847&ekdata=e1f9faffb24d6771dacb1111556150b5) - Highlight (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/highlight.pl?l=english&c=hf&cat=web&q=Nigeria+Ebola+free&rl=NONE&rid=MILOLNSNKQTL&hlq=https://startpage.com/do/metasearch.pl&mtcat=web&mtlanguage=english&u=http:%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fstoryline%2Febola-virus-outbreak%2Fwho-declares-nigeria-ebola-free-after-42-days-no-cases-n229536)
8 hours ago ... ABUJA - The World Health Organization declared Nigeria Ebola free on Monday after a 42 day period with no new cases, a success story with ...

2 African countries free of Ebola - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/health/ebola-outbreak-roundup/)

www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/health/ (http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/health/)ebola-outbreak-roundup/ - View by Ixquick Proxy (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/proxy?ep=475259595a69515a4e4459714b6a6451435149665 2687350556a774b4248785343546430576e6f71464651394c4 14d51554468495779774c435273464f67465444464d494c523 8486342684f5454467765796b7047486839477741375a77527 45556634448686b394e516b6a50476c4d486a4a564c6a51375 27939544e554d695541564b43565653504663484a6b734c575 26f4a5147556d4e484e4a47524d6e477a516e43514d7a4d413 44f4144736357427064476a63694f4442584f6c3874496a414 f57466f7a617939634f465a47427935685a326441556934764 54531514d31354544543077506e46644531684d54573445595 47053426d64505055384f476c6c3455686b374e55455153415 548456a49384e45747041565247517877664c3070394a6c635 14b526448486b525042304a4356554131456b3834446e4e546 5786c4651336b4756416c4e5441705857534e5655563958637 83548526d5247547a414f4d425138544359305632634343535 6494f4777465079636452516b6d4a543955506e684a4457786 a4d7a6f444d7a675a5a57386f4a54735256685245516b5a624 547316253585558446a6378486e645653414a6f61673948517 8383d&epile=4q6n41784r4445774q6n41784s46387n4q4335725n58 6o3q&edata=04032d08dedb0d2a3880a023007b58c3&ek=6548346p5145676o5556684r526p346n5953523865334r7 0644639726345456p624656534o30646o66544r59586q70786 53330714r454271496r313358325231666n38315931424n4r5 434384n46564r4r6q426p567n517n534535774r6p4168647n3 976627952565158315454314r6n4q55456854305n504r30343 0554731425032686p6254703955544n7n527n68754s4768714 o4574575746556o62574r58654656544r4852575569686n644 574734r48737n66554n4458315671587n464o546p6p394q487 847566o636s54435n6n4r4739455653466p594768595n7n702 o5544417149313566553152765657703866466s685533786n4 r6o4n396533302o5032732o4s6r78615754563462546442643 14254574370456269457949573536546946515644686p52334 q79626q4639515751334q53464263334n5n503055335379687 n4n5567784q5738704o544r7661554177597n3479525831776 46p462o4o314933556n4n4s50456p48616p496o66565n31645 468555232706r496r4r7259575n6863796p7350696847&ekdata=c4ccff57a28c2b2edef5012d0bc7b987) - Highlight (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/highlight.pl?l=english&c=hf&cat=web&q=Nigeria+Ebola+free&rl=NONE&rid=MILOLNSNKQTL&hlq=https://startpage.com/do/metasearch.pl&mtcat=web&mtlanguage=english&u=http:%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2014%2F10%2F20%2Fhealth %2Febola-outbreak-roundup%2F)
54 minutes ago ... Ebola cases keep spiraling out of control in the three West African countries, ... WHO: Nigeria is free of Ebola after 19 cases and seven deaths.



Also SENAGAL

fj1200
10-20-2014, 02:47 PM
^Some people must thing Nigeria is better than the US. :dunno:

revelarts
10-20-2014, 03:01 PM
^Some people must thing Nigeria is better than the US. :dunno:

Yess which country is "better"?
That's the take away from the story:laugh:.

Better at dealing with Ebola in a rational, medically responsible, non-political, non-media fear mongered way.
yep looks like it.

revelarts
10-20-2014, 03:10 PM
UVC or a 5.25 solution of household bleach
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php

Also, it spreads through direct contact with infected fluids, so basic hygiene and sanitation would go far.
".....
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO DISINFECTANTS: Ebolavirus is susceptible to 3% acetic acid, 1% glutaraldehyde, alcohol-based products, and dilutions (1:10-1:100 for ≥10 minutes) of 5.25% household bleach (sodium hypochlorite), and calcium hypochlorite (bleach powder) Footnote 48 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote48) Footnote 49 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote49) Footnote 50 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote50) Footnote 62 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote62) Footnote 63 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote63). The WHO recommendations for cleaning up spills of blood or body fluids suggest flooding the area with a 1:10 dilutions of 5.25% household bleach for 10 minutes for surfaces that can tolerate stronger bleach solutions (e.g., cement, metal) Footnote 62 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote62). For surfaces that may corrode or discolour, they recommend careful cleaning to remove visible stains followed by contact with a 1:100 dilution of 5.25% household bleach for more than 10 minutes.

PHYSICAL INACTIVATION: Ebola are moderately thermolabile and can be inactivated by heating for 30 minutes to 60 minutes at 60C, boiling for 5 minutes, or gamma irradiation (1.2 x106 rads to 1.27 x106 rads) combined with 1% glutaraldehyde Footnote 10 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote10) Footnote 48 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote48) Footnote 50 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote50). Ebolavirus has also been determined to be moderately sensitive to UVC radiation Footnote 51 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote51).
SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: Filoviruses have been reported capable to survive for weeks in blood and can also survive on contaminated surfaces, particularly at low temperatures (4C) Footnote 52 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote52) Footnote 61 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote61). One study could not recover any Ebolavirus from experimentally contaminated surfaces (plastic, metal or glass) at room temperature Footnote 61 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote61). In another study, Ebolavirus dried onto glass, polymeric silicone rubber, or painted aluminum alloy is able to survive in the dark for several hours under ambient conditions (between 20C and 25C and 3040% relative humidity) (amount of virus reduced to 37% after 15.4 hours), but is less stable than some other viral hemorrhagic fevers (Lassa) Footnote 53 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote53). When dried in tissue culture media onto glass and stored at 4 C, Zaire ebolavirus survived for over 50 days Footnote 61 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote61). This information is based on experimental findings only and not based on observations in nature. This information is intended to be used to support local risk assessments in a laboratory setting.
A study on transmission of ebolavirus from fomites in an isolation ward concludes that the risk of transmission is low when recommended infection control guidelines for viral hemorrhagic fevers are followed Footnote 64 (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php#footnote64). Infection control protocols included decontamination of floors with 0.5% bleach daily and decontamination of visibly contaminated surfaces with 0.05% bleach as necessary....."



Nigeria officially declared Ebola free - Africa - Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2014/10/nigeria-officially-declared-ebola-free-2014102010040987109.html)


"....Nigeria becomes the second country in West Africa to be declared Ebola free in the past week. On Friday, the UN health agency declared Senegal (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2014/10/senegal-ebola-who-20141017134110541778.html) free of Ebola after it passed the 42 day landmark...."

Gunny
10-20-2014, 03:41 PM
^Righties need to be better and not stoop to their level. One good thing about RW "loons" is at least they generally aren't demanding that government do something for them at the expense of others.

The government can come clean up the mess I make.

Drummond
10-20-2014, 04:48 PM
BBC News - Ebola crisis: Nigeria declared free of virus (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29685127)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29685127 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29685127) - View by Ixquick Proxy (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/proxy?ep=475259595a69515a4e4459714b6a6451435149665 2687350556a774b4248785343546430576e6f71464651394c4 14d51554468495779774c435273464f67465444464d494c523 8486342684f5454467765796b7047486839477741375a77527 45556634448686b394e516b6a50476c4d486a4a564c6a51375 27939544e554d695541564b43565653504663484a6b734c575 26f4a5147556d4e484e4a47524d6e477a516e43514d7a4d413 44f4144736357427064476a63694f4442584f6c3874496a414 f57466f7a617939634f465a47427935685a326441556934764 54531514d6c4a4a445430776653454563466736456a3957494 66c52634455534352466145677059534255354f42684b56414 635516d466862777778436b424751464e4a647864686241705 3636855474477515a6456454f56426c7a456b412f447951424 b6b6b524569774456556c62575677635648455746303050434 36b684468774554436836466d7437635268695752594254684 a54426b68706331304351525a5a566c5a5a536878655768703 24f556f58496970485a476838633238545655464b5178453d&epile=4q6n41784r4445774q6n41784s46387n4q4335725n58 6o3q&edata=e74721136cc3c16b15ad59158ffe53ab&ek=6548346p5145676o5556684r526p346n5953523865334r7 0644639726345456p624656534o30646o66544r59586q70786 53330714r454271496r313358325231666n38315931424n4r5 434384n46564r4r6q426p567n517n534535774r6p4168647n3 976627952565158315454314r6n4q55456854305n504r30343 0554731425032686p6254703955544n7n527n68754s4768714 o4574575746556o62574r58654656544r4852575569686n644 574734r48737n66554n4458315671587n464o546p6p394q487 847566o636s54435n6n4r4739455653466p594768595n7n702 o5544417149313566553152765657703866466s685533786n4 r6o4n396533302o5032732o4s6r78615754563462546442643 14254574370456269457949573536546946515644686p52334 q79626q4639515751334q53464263334n5n503055335379687 n4n5567784q5738704o544r7661554177597n3479525831776 46p462o4o314933556n4n4s50456p48616p496o66565n31645 468555232706r496r4r7259575n6863796p7350696847&ekdata=3d98e4b950d34fcbad0db8d5d9c20572) - Highlight (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/highlight.pl?l=english&c=hf&cat=web&q=Nigeria+Ebola+free&rl=NONE&rid=MILOLNSNKQTL&hlq=https://startpage.com/do/metasearch.pl&mtcat=web&mtlanguage=english&u=http:%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fworld-africa-29685127)
3 hours ago ... Nigeria has been declared officially free of Ebola after six weeks with no new cases, the World Health Organization (WHO) says.

Nigeria declared Ebola-free, holds lessons for others | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/20/us-health-ebola-nigeria-idUSKCN0I90T620141020)

www.reuters.com/ (http://www.reuters.com/) article/ 2014/ 10/ 20/ us-health-ebola-nigeria-idUSKCN0I90T620141020 - View by Ixquick Proxy (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/proxy?ep=475259595a69515a4e4459714b6a6451435149665 2687350556a774b4248785343546430576e6f71464651394c4 14d51554468495779774c435273464f67465444464d494c523 8486342684f5454467765796b7047486839477741375a77527 45556634448686b394e516b6a50476c4d486a4a564c6a51375 27939544e554d695541564b43565653504663484a6b734c575 26f4a5147556d4e484e4a47524d6e477a516e43514d7a4d413 44f4144736357427064476a63694f4442584f6c3874496a414 f57466f7a617939634f465a47427935685a326441556934764 5453151496c5666567a737449486f4d4f67645a54687841495 1674b56533459586b393444567350446c6c6f4877524953415 54852574232616d777848517861524138574f6b6c394d566f4 b4b784966414167614a425a655541776f4679634b64415a356 532464b465277484131385948514a6657334157466c70544d5 2784e46575248534773465a465236585370325744455554544 a4e51413433646c6c5646304150423151465168394b5446677 063304d585a6a78586242555a46795a7547304d474e6a63775 152493656584a685357595744545155514164764f776b55535 56f6144486c6645426c4662313142544631584147563542417 34e4647456f41466748&epile=4q6n41784r4445774q6n41784s46387n4q4335725n58 6o3q&edata=8ecbbb0230a37ffa4da554917205455b&ek=6548346p5145676o5556684r526p346n5953523865334r7 0644639726345456p624656534o30646o66544r59586q70786 53330714r454271496r313358325231666n38315931424n4r5 434384n46564r4r6q426p567n517n534535774r6p4168647n3 976627952565158315454314r6n4q55456854305n504r30343 0554731425032686p6254703955544n7n527n68754s4768714 o4574575746556o62574r58654656544r4852575569686n644 574734r48737n66554n4458315671587n464o546p6p394q487 847566o636s54435n6n4r4739455653466p594768595n7n702 o5544417149313566553152765657703866466s685533786n4 r6o4n396533302o5032732o4s6r78615754563462546442643 14254574370456269457949573536546946515644686p52334 q79626q4639515751334q53464263334n5n503055335379687 n4n5567784q5738704o544r7661554177597n3479525831776 46p462o4o314933556n4n4s50456p48616p496o66565n31645 468555232706r496r4r7259575n6863796p7350696847&ekdata=6a395cf53a481b44610826037c3f3dc7) - Highlight (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/highlight.pl?l=english&c=hf&cat=web&q=Nigeria+Ebola+free&rl=NONE&rid=MILOLNSNKQTL&hlq=https://startpage.com/do/metasearch.pl&mtcat=web&mtlanguage=english&u=http:%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2F2014%2F10 %2F20%2Fus-health-ebola-nigeria-idUSKCN0I90T620141020)
1 hour ago ... ABUJA/LAGOS (Reuters) - Nigeria was declared free of the deadly Ebola virus on Monday after a determined doctor and thousands of officials ...

Ebola: WHO Declares Nigeria Free of Ebola - Time (http://time.com/3522984/ebola-nigeria-who/)

www.time.com/3522984/ (http://www.time.com/3522984/)ebola-nigeria-who/ - View by Ixquick Proxy (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/proxy?ep=475259595a69515a4e4459714b6a6451435149665 2687350556a774b4248785343546430576e6f71464651394c4 14d51554468495779774c435273464f67465444464d494c523 8486342684f5454467765796b7047486839477741375a77527 45556634448686b394e516b6a50476c4d486a4a564c6a51375 27939544e554d695541564b43565653504663484a6b734c575 26f4a5147556d4e484e4a47524d6e477a516e43514d7a4d413 44f4144736357427064476a63694f4442584f6c3874496a414 f57466f7a617939634f465a47427935685a326441556934734 46c6362666c4e46546e7474465764615a31684652473445595 46f4756433052476c425156677862534255376445495141684 a7a4d58596d50457377447877445277744d655246694d51786 46678454c566c4e504a774a5543454e3452424272436e55426 678684152473544515142614641424a48544d4e4c6d706a505 4414b4553737a6277734348324e72447731695752594344695 a49515138784a41395646554e5457464e54467874634278783 059687847645867565a476c39636a73565755593d&epile=4q6n41784r4445774q6n41784s46387n4q4335725n58 6o3q&edata=8954dab4541faf8c13af09514020899b&ek=6548346p5145676o5556684r526p346n5953523865334r7 0644639726345456p624656534o30646o66544r59586q70786 53330714r454271496r313358325231666n38315931424n4r5 434384n46564r4r6q426p567n517n534535774r6p4168647n3 976627952565158315454314r6n4q55456854305n504r30343 0554731425032686p6254703955544n7n527n68754s4768714 o4574575746556o62574r58654656544r4852575569686n644 574734r48737n66554n4458315671587n464o546p6p394q487 847566o636s54435n6n4r4739455653466p594768595n7n702 o5544417149313566553152765657703866466s685533786n4 r6o4n396533302o5032732o4s6r78615754563462546442643 14254574370456269457949573536546946515644686p52334 q79626q4639515751334q53464263334n5n503055335379687 n4n5567784q5738704o544r7661554177597n3479525831776 46p462o4o314933556n4n4s50456p48616p496o66565n31645 468555232706r496r4r7259575n6863796p7350696847&ekdata=5431fd2cd58a3b18c782779f48df2a12) - Highlight (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/highlight.pl?l=english&c=hf&cat=web&q=Nigeria+Ebola+free&rl=NONE&rid=MILOLNSNKQTL&hlq=https://startpage.com/do/metasearch.pl&mtcat=web&mtlanguage=english&u=http:%2F%2Ftime.com%2F3522984%2Febola-nigeria-who%2F)
16 hours ago ... For the WHO to declare Nigeria as Ebola-free, the country had to make it 42 days with no new cases (double the incubation period), verify that it ...

WHO Declares Nigeria Ebola-Free After 42 Days With No Cases ... (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/who-declares-nigeria-ebola-free-after-42-days-no-cases-n229536)

www.nbcnews.com/ (http://www.nbcnews.com/) storyline/ ebola-virus-outbreak/ who-declares-nigeria-ebola-free-after-42-days-no-cases-n229536 - View by Ixquick Proxy (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/proxy?ep=475259595a69515a4e4459714b6a6451435149665 2687350556a774b4248785343546430576e6f71464651394c4 14d51554468495779774c435273464f67465444464d494c523 8486342684f5454467765796b7047486839477741375a77527 45556634448686b394e516b6a50476c4d486a4a564c6a51375 27939544e554d695541564b43565653504663484a6b734c575 26f4a5147556d4e484e4a47524d6e477a516e43514d7a4d413 44f4144736357427064476a63694f4442584f6c3874496a414 f57466f7a617939634f465a47427935685a326441556934764 5453151506c4a4a5454736f49486f4d4f67645a546878534a7 84d5254793455465267624453316257424d324f42674f42455 530424830384c56346d48455254536b7449434659344f78554 24968426544784d594d6b6c5a5745596b41527334456942564 a4551534343354456416f45534655624444496456777766495 2774a42587751524839554d304572543251705747416453475 644553030774a6834474878454a41674251537868624442416 a596b6b5549697754615735364a4767515630464b54455a515 2326862566a4e5641795a764832455144673456436a734a4e6 7644e5467307565306736446b46474f686f474a33593652514 d49457a417555314a535a77774b66587755424741595177304 e445564676355786d666d4e585648635a4c513d3d&epile=4q6n41784r4445774q6n41784s46387n4q4335725n58 6o3q&edata=789597dabe3ea689811363661a24851a&ek=6548346p5145676o5556684r526p346n5953523865334r7 0644639726345456p624656534o30646o66544r59586q70786 53330714r454271496r313358325231666n38315931424n4r5 434384n46564r4r6q426p567n517n534535774r6p4168647n3 976627952565158315454314r6n4q55456854305n504r30343 0554731425032686p6254703955544n7n527n68754s4768714 o4574575746556o62574r58654656544r4852575569686n644 574734r48737n66554n4458315671587n464o546p6p394q487 847566o636s54435n6n4r4739455653466p594768595n7n702 o5544417149313566553152765657703866466s685533786n4 r6o4n396533302o5032732o4s6r78615754563462546442643 14254574370456269457949573536546946515644686p52334 q79626q4639515751334q53464263334n5n503055335379687 n4n5567784q5738704o544r7661554177597n3479525831776 46p462o4o314933556n4n4s50456p48616p496o66565n31645 468555232706r496r4r7259575n6863796p7350696847&ekdata=e1f9faffb24d6771dacb1111556150b5) - Highlight (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/highlight.pl?l=english&c=hf&cat=web&q=Nigeria+Ebola+free&rl=NONE&rid=MILOLNSNKQTL&hlq=https://startpage.com/do/metasearch.pl&mtcat=web&mtlanguage=english&u=http:%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fstoryline%2Febola-virus-outbreak%2Fwho-declares-nigeria-ebola-free-after-42-days-no-cases-n229536)
8 hours ago ... ABUJA - The World Health Organization declared Nigeria Ebola free on Monday after a 42 day period with no new cases, a success story with ...

2 African countries free of Ebola - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/health/ebola-outbreak-roundup/)

www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/health/ (http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/health/)ebola-outbreak-roundup/ - View by Ixquick Proxy (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/proxy?ep=475259595a69515a4e4459714b6a6451435149665 2687350556a774b4248785343546430576e6f71464651394c4 14d51554468495779774c435273464f67465444464d494c523 8486342684f5454467765796b7047486839477741375a77527 45556634448686b394e516b6a50476c4d486a4a564c6a51375 27939544e554d695541564b43565653504663484a6b734c575 26f4a5147556d4e484e4a47524d6e477a516e43514d7a4d413 44f4144736357427064476a63694f4442584f6c3874496a414 f57466f7a617939634f465a47427935685a326441556934764 54531514d31354544543077506e46644531684d54573445595 47053426d64505055384f476c6c3455686b374e55455153415 548456a49384e45747041565247517877664c3070394a6c635 14b526448486b525042304a4356554131456b3834446e4e546 5786c4651336b4756416c4e5441705857534e5655563958637 83548526d5247547a414f4d425138544359305632634343535 6494f4777465079636452516b6d4a543955506e684a4457786 a4d7a6f444d7a675a5a57386f4a54735256685245516b5a624 547316253585558446a6378486e645653414a6f61673948517 8383d&epile=4q6n41784r4445774q6n41784s46387n4q4335725n58 6o3q&edata=04032d08dedb0d2a3880a023007b58c3&ek=6548346p5145676o5556684r526p346n5953523865334r7 0644639726345456p624656534o30646o66544r59586q70786 53330714r454271496r313358325231666n38315931424n4r5 434384n46564r4r6q426p567n517n534535774r6p4168647n3 976627952565158315454314r6n4q55456854305n504r30343 0554731425032686p6254703955544n7n527n68754s4768714 o4574575746556o62574r58654656544r4852575569686n644 574734r48737n66554n4458315671587n464o546p6p394q487 847566o636s54435n6n4r4739455653466p594768595n7n702 o5544417149313566553152765657703866466s685533786n4 r6o4n396533302o5032732o4s6r78615754563462546442643 14254574370456269457949573536546946515644686p52334 q79626q4639515751334q53464263334n5n503055335379687 n4n5567784q5738704o544r7661554177597n3479525831776 46p462o4o314933556n4n4s50456p48616p496o66565n31645 468555232706r496r4r7259575n6863796p7350696847&ekdata=c4ccff57a28c2b2edef5012d0bc7b987) - Highlight (https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/highlight.pl?l=english&c=hf&cat=web&q=Nigeria+Ebola+free&rl=NONE&rid=MILOLNSNKQTL&hlq=https://startpage.com/do/metasearch.pl&mtcat=web&mtlanguage=english&u=http:%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2014%2F10%2F20%2Fhealth %2Febola-outbreak-roundup%2F)
54 minutes ago ... Ebola cases keep spiraling out of control in the three West African countries, ... WHO: Nigeria is free of Ebola after 19 cases and seven deaths.



Also SENAGAL


It is to be hoped, for their sake, that Nigeria can continue to be Ebola free.

Come to that, I'd hope for that for our sake, too. One less source of the disease might just improve the chances of its spread being limited (although I expect that's unlikely, considering the current extent of its spread ..).

Nearer to home - for me, anyway - we have, as a main news item, the interview Jose Manuel Barroso gave on yesterday's Andrew Marr Show (BBC-1 political and current affairs interviewing programme). It's significant, because David Cameron has been trying to get the concession from the EU for Britain to gain autonomy over its own borders .. so that we can control immigration from other EU Member States.

But Barroso (outgoing EU President) was adamant that the free movement of people, without ANY border restrictions between member States, was an inviolable core EU principle. Non-negotiable, under any circumstances.

So, here we are, with a looming likelihood of Ebola reaching Europe .. infecting any number of these 'Member States'. And there's Barroso, entrenched in his political correctness, to the point where he can't see beyond it to the REAL world. Obviously, it'd help substantially if countries could close their borders as they needed to. But, NO ... EU Leftieness won't give this consideration the time of day. If Ebola overruns every country, decimating its populations, well, at least it'll do it in a 'politically correct' way !!!

And the rest of the world will have to be on its guard from a couple of DOZEN extra countries ... possibly needlessly.

Leftieism. It'll be, quite literally, the death of us !!

Drummond
10-20-2014, 04:56 PM
:rolleyes: I've "crossed swords" with morons with active imaginations who are lacking in the capacity of engaging in a reasonable discussion and have the annoying habit of misidentifying lefties. Some of them claim to be conservative. ;)

And all of your questions have been answered in other threads which you've managed to run away from when the going gets tough.

Yet more of your troll stuff. You seem incapable of giving it up.

But for all your blather, you continue to run away from my question.

I want you to name ONE Leftie you've treated to the same troll abuse as you have for anyone else, be it me, be it anyone else. Just name ONE Left-winger you've targeted in the same way.

You can't do it, can you ?

I needn't argue this further with you. Point made.

aboutime
10-20-2014, 06:27 PM
Yet more of your troll stuff. You seem incapable of giving it up.

But for all your blather, you continue to run away from my question.

I want you to name ONE Leftie you've treated to the same troll abuse as you have for anyone else, be it me, be it anyone else. Just name ONE Left-winger you've targeted in the same way.

You can't do it, can you ?

I needn't argue this further with you. Point made.



Sir Drummond. We now have TWO self-admitted trolls who go by the handle's 'gabby'http://icansayit.com/images/troll.jpg and 'fj'http://icansayit.com/images/troll.jpg.

Keep this in mind and they will never win....

Gunny
10-20-2014, 07:15 PM
It's all Obama's fault. He created his own virus. You know, the one that's older than he is ....

gabosaurus
10-20-2014, 08:03 PM
It's all Obama's fault. He created his own virus. You know, the one that's older than he is ....

I've been trying to figure out a way to blame Ebola on Bush, but haven't come up with anything yet. I'll let everyone know when I figure it out. :carryon:

Gunny
10-20-2014, 08:18 PM
I've been trying to figure out a way to blame Ebola on Bush, but haven't come up with anything yet. I'll let everyone know when I figure it out. :carryon:

Figures.

It's all Obama's fault. :laugh:

fj1200
10-20-2014, 09:53 PM
Yess which country is "better"?
That's the take away from the story:laugh:.

Better at dealing with Ebola in a rational, medically responsible, non-political, non-media fear mongered way.
yep looks like it.

Never happen when below is what the world is dealing with.


Leftieism. It'll be, quite literally, the death of us !!

:facepalm99:

fj1200
10-20-2014, 09:58 PM
:blah:

I needn't argue this further with you. Point made.

As I've said I've answered all your questions in other threads and now you're whining like a punk in a brand new thread. You couldn't make a rational point without bleating, "Aack, leftie," if you're life depended on it. Are you sure you're not French?

BTW, I see you've built in your bog standard bailout line to prevent further failure on your part. Run away little one, run away.

fj1200
10-20-2014, 11:23 PM
I want you to name ONE Leftie you've treated to the same troll abuse as you have for anyone else, be it me, be it anyone else. Just name ONE Left-winger you've targeted in the same way.

You know something? I've been pondering this one a bit and I feel I owe you a better answer. Sure I could rattle off some names, and have in the past, of some leftie :scared: posters that I've debated with in the past but I can't distinctly remember that they have been so mind numbingly stupid as you and some of your knucklehead friends. I mean, of course they've not made the best life choices in the past which have no doubt led to their liberal beliefs but they tend to no longer argue their points when they see that they can't get anywhere with the truth and fact that I present to them. They are free to present their views and I'll do my best to present an argument as to why they are wrong but they generally will no longer follow up when they are unable to present some facts or argument that will win the day against a truly conservative position.

You, on the other hand, when unable to present facts or arguments that can win the day against a truly conservative position will double down with imaginative musings, whining like a leftie, and stooping to only arguing against the individual and not the position. Case in point the many times you've charged "leftie," been requested to prove your charge, and have been unable to do so. Now if you had the capacity to argue intelligently then there wouldn't be any reason to subject you to "abuse" but when you constantly go to the well of prattling on about imagined lefties then I feel I must inform you of what I think of your mental abilities. I consider it tough love. FWIW I typically argue the point straight up until your imagination gets the best of you, then it's gloves off of course. :)

I think I know the real problem though. It's that I've presented a side of Lady Thatcher that you can't square with your beliefs and it drives you to complete and utter madness, for that I am sorry. Now, in the spirit of letting bygones be bygones I will remove my references to the former Prime Minister from my title and signature once you announce that because of no evidence to your charge; that I am, in fact, not a leftie. I would do that for you. Agreed?

gabosaurus
10-21-2014, 12:35 AM
OK, I figured it out. Right after Bush dispatched Godzilla to kick over the World Trade Center buildings...

Gunny
10-21-2014, 04:08 AM
OK, I figured it out. Right after Bush dispatched Godzilla to kick over the World Trade Center buildings...

No, Bush had the hurricane machine and created Katrina. Get your stories straight. :)

Drummond
10-21-2014, 07:35 AM
I've been trying to figure out a way to blame Ebola on Bush, but haven't come up with anything yet. I'll let everyone know when I figure it out. :carryon:

Oh, I'm sure you'll find a 'way'. Though this will presumably tax your inventiveness to the absolute limit ... of course.

I can't, offhand, think of any occasion of any Leftie missing an opportunity at disseminating self-serving propaganda. Its grounding in truth need not (and invariably isn't) be the remotest consideration. Naturally.

Have fun ...

Drummond
10-21-2014, 07:37 AM
OK, I figured it out. Right after Bush dispatched Godzilla to kick over the World Trade Center buildings...

... ah, just seen.

Nice try. And --- more convincing than your more usual fayre !!! I congratulate you .....

Drummond
10-21-2014, 08:21 AM
You know something? I've been pondering this one a bit and I feel I owe you a better answer.

Steady on ... you'll strain something. Credibility comes to mind ....


Sure I could rattle off some names

- BUT YOU HAVEN'T. You continue, still, to dodge my question.

Of course.

.. and have in the past, of some leftie :scared: posters that I've debated with in the past but I can't distinctly remember that they have been so mind numbingly stupid as you and some of your knucklehead friends. I mean, of course they've not made the best life choices in the past which have no doubt led to their liberal beliefs but they tend to no longer argue their points when they see that they can't get anywhere with the truth and fact that I present to them. They are free to present their views and I'll do my best to present an argument as to why they are wrong but they generally will no longer follow up when they are unable to present some facts or argument that will win the day against a truly conservative position.

Interesting so far as it goes, but we only have your word for all of this. My attempt to get you to answer a simple question continues to be avoided .. now, with this diversionary account of 'happenings' which I take to be totally unconnected with this forum.

Actually - I think that you're describing my past debates with you, to an extent, anyway. You'll debate reasonably when you think you've a chance of winning. Since you're invariably proved wrong on that, so you instead go to abuse, diversion, ANYTHING other than admit you're wrong. Which, of course, is bog-standard Leftie fayre.

These days, you launch into troll stuff almost immediately -- because you're used to understanding that you're unlikely to 'win' otherwise against me (you delude yourself into thinking it serves your interests to try it, since you're trapped by your Leftie psychology into thinking that surface impressions can substitute for fact and reputability).


You, on the other hand, when unable to present facts or arguments that can win the day against a truly conservative position

I've no idea at all what you're talking about. Present some examples !!!


... will double down with imaginative musings, whining like a leftie, and stooping to only arguing against the individual and not the position. Case in point the many times you've charged "leftie," been requested to prove your charge, and have been unable to do so.

You argue like a Leftie. The troll stuff itself is clear evidence of that, so you 'prove my charge' on a very regular basis, just from that alone. I see nothing wrong with pointing it out .. much though you'd like me not to.


Now if you had the capacity to argue intelligently then there wouldn't be any reason to subject you to "abuse" but when you constantly go to the well of prattling on about imagined lefties then I feel I must inform you of what I think of your mental abilities. I consider it tough love.

Nope. You do it out of a mixture of the Leftie idea of 'fun' against an opponent, and sheer desperation, since you cannot win out otherwise. Its troll behaviour, which your psychology tells you is 'fine' to indulge in at the drop of a hat.


FWIW I typically argue the point straight up until your imagination gets the best of you, then it's gloves off of course. :)

Nope .. see above. Dream on ...


I think I know the real problem though. It's that I've presented a side of Lady Thatcher that you can't square with your beliefs and it drives you to complete and utter madness, for that I am sorry. Now, in the spirit of letting bygones be bygones I will remove my references to the former Prime Minister from my title and signature once you announce that because of no evidence to your charge; that I am, in fact, not a leftie. I would do that for you. Agreed?

Cease to argue as a Leftie. Cease to behave as one, courtesy, not least, of all the troll rot you dish out by the ton. In other words .. if you want to be considered a Conservative, START TO PROVE YOU'RE ONE.

As for this 'side of Lady Thatcher I can't square with my beliefs' .... I don't know what you're talking about. However I do recall telling you about her 'Section 28' legislation, which YOU could not square with YOUR beliefs. Indeed ... you might characterise it as a 'Big Government' position ... ??

Check it out --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

Remove your references to Lady Thatcher from you title and signature as you wish to ... I suggest you do so as an act of HONESTY, unconnected with any 'deal' you wish to concoct.

Gunny
10-21-2014, 08:29 AM
Steady on ... you'll strain something. Credibility comes to mind ....



- BUT YOU HAVEN'T. You continue, still, to dodge my question.

Of course.


Interesting so far as it goes, but we only have your word for all of this. My attempt to get you to answer a simple question continues to be avoided .. now, with this diversionary account of 'happenings' which I take to be totally unconnected with this forum.

Actually - I think that you're describing my past debates with you, to an extent, anyway. You'll debate reasonably when you think you've a chance of winning. Since you're invariably proved wrong on that, so you instead go to abuse, diversion, ANYTHING other than admit you're wrong. Which, of course, is bog-standard Leftie fayre.

These days, you launch into troll stuff almost immediately -- because you're used to understanding that you're unlikely to 'win' otherwise against me (you delude yourself into thinking it serves your interests to try it, since you're trapped by your Leftie psychology into thinking that surface impressions can substitute for fact and reputability).



I've no idea at all what you're talking about. Present some examples !!!



You argue like a Leftie. The troll stuff itself is clear evidence of that, so you 'prove my charge' on a very regular basis, just from that alone. I see nothing wrong with pointing it out .. much though you'd like me not to.



Nope. You do it out of a mixture of the Leftie idea of 'fun' against an opponent, and sheer desperation, since you cannot win out otherwise. Its troll behaviour, which your psychology tells you is 'fine' to indulge in at the drop of a hat.



Nope .. see above. Dream on ...



Cease to argue as a Leftie. Cease to behave as one, courtesy, not least, of all the troll rot you dish out by the ton. In other words .. if you want to be considered a Conservative, START TO PROVE YOU'RE ONE.

As for this 'side of Lady Thatcher I can't square with my beliefs' .... I don't know what you're talking about. However I do recall telling you about her 'Section 28' legislation, which YOU could not square with YOUR beliefs. Indeed ... you might characterise it as a 'Big Government' position ... ??

Check it out --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

Remove your references to Lady Thatcher from you title and signature as you wish to ... I suggest you do so as an act of HONESTY, unconnected with any 'deal' you wish to concoct.

I hate to be the one to point this out, but he's more conservative than a LOT of people on this board. "Conservative" does NOT = "Republicant." The Republicans here would have you believe they are conservative when they aren't anything close.

Why do think the party is splintered like it is?

Jeff
10-21-2014, 08:35 AM
Figures.

It's all Obama's fault. :laugh:

I guess after reading all the trash on the board as of late ( and this is not just for you Gunny but all that have decided Obama is a rock star ) is anything Obama's fault ? No he didn't create this horrible virus but instead of playing Golf maybe he could of tried to keep it out of our borders, I mean I now see folks that use to post conservative are now making Gabby look like a right wing nut :laugh: All because they are mad, seriously let the personal BS go and just be yourselves ( and again Gunny this is not aimed at you but I know you are strong enough not to take it personal )

Gunny
10-21-2014, 10:00 AM
I guess after reading all the trash on the board as of late ( and this is not just for you Gunny but all that have decided Obama is a rock star ) is anything Obama's fault ? No he didn't create this horrible virus but instead of playing Golf maybe he could of tried to keep it out of our borders, I mean I now see folks that use to post conservative are now making Gabby look like a right wing nut :laugh: All because they are mad, seriously let the personal BS go and just be yourselves ( and again Gunny this is not aimed at you but I know you are strong enough not to take it personal )

You're missing the shot. Obama sucks. He's lied his ass off since day one. I'm all about accusing him of what's done. Rightwingnut idiots, no different than leftwingnut idiots, blame him for everything.

Ebola was around before Obama. Sorry.

And, if anyone chooses to come after me personally, and more importantly fuck with my GF because she doesn't fall into lockstep with the party, then you get to be my new best friend. She can hold her own until the biddy mob gangs up on her. I won't tolerate it. Period. And that IS personal.

Feel free to tell anyone you want to back the fuck the fuck off. Fact is, the intolerant a-holes here can't be told they're wrong, nor disagreed with. And not one of them has an educated opinion. Unless you call Hannity and Rush education. I call it propaganda.

And I know their game. This isn't the first board they've played locust on. ;)

Drummond
10-21-2014, 10:01 AM
I hate to be the one to point this out, but he's more conservative than a LOT of people on this board. "Conservative" does NOT = "Republicant." The Republicans here would have you believe they are conservative when they aren't anything close.

Why do think the party is splintered like it is?

On your last point .. I think you overstate the case. Note - I said 'OVERSTATE', not 'YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG'.

I accept that the GOP needs to do a lot of work to become viewable as fully and properly Conservative.

But here's the problem. For all its faults, the GOP is your only realistic chance of countering Obama and replacing him. The more that's done to compromise the GOP's chance of winning, the greater the chance of the Dems winning instead.

I can therefore conceive of an individual claiming Conservative bona fides, in order to convince others to stop voting GOP ... in order to help a LEFTIE cause, instead.

But back to your first point .... which I don't accept for a second. 'He' hasn't even had the wit to try out the strategy I've just described. No, not a bit of it. Yes, he says he's a Conservative -- but does so in a way that doesn't stack up. The 'Thatcherite' claim is a nonsense, for a number of reasons, not least his lack of full understanding of her politics, of her wish and unhesitating choice to take on draconian, State powers when necessary, to tackle social evils .. this which he'd reject as a 'Big Government' position, despite still SAYING he was 'Thatcherite', yet proving otherwise.

Why claim you're 'Thatcherite' when you're NOT, unless the intention was / is to oversell a con ?

I can point to other things. All the troll rubbish, quite a giveaway all on its own. That he attacks CONSERVATIVES rather than LEFTIES on this board, reserving his strongest attacks for the most staunch Conservative amongst them (... for me, because I see right through him ...).

That, on the supposed basis of 'rationality', he'll oppose criticisms of Obama he sees (I recall an impeachment debate where a defence of Obama was advanced).

Then, there's his defence of terrorists ... with a mindset about their 'human rights' indistinguishable from Jimmy Carter's !!!

And this, from a CONSERVATIVE ?? REALLY .. ????

So, no. True Conservatism is not in evidence. Just the unconvincing pretence of it, at absolute best.

I could go on - but I've no need to. The case is made.

Jeff
10-21-2014, 05:18 PM
You're missing the shot. Obama sucks. He's lied his ass off since day one. I'm all about accusing him of what's done. Rightwingnut idiots, no different than leftwingnut idiots, blame him for everything.

Ebola was around before Obama. Sorry.

And, if anyone chooses to come after me personally, and more importantly fuck with my GF because she doesn't fall into lockstep with the party, then you get to be my new best friend. She can hold her own until the biddy mob gangs up on her. I won't tolerate it. Period. And that IS personal.

Feel free to tell anyone you want to back the fuck the fuck off. Fact is, the intolerant a-holes here can't be told they're wrong, nor disagreed with. And not one of them has an educated opinion. Unless you call Hannity and Rush education. I call it propaganda.

And I know their game. This isn't the first board they've played locust on. ;)

OK I hear ya, and no , no one should gang up on anyone, but Gunny I see it going both ways , personally I enjoy reading all the post that all of ya make but it is turning into a pissing match, where I use to learn a lot from everyone's post , now I see nothing but fighting, and again man this isn't towards you personally , I see all involved and ask all to just post the way y'all use to, I guess I bring it to you because we trashed around and had so much fun with Bull Shit post that I was actually having fun here, don't get me wrong I also enjoy when there was a good debate ( I honestly learned a lot ) but anymore many have changed there political stance just for the sake of being able to fight, and that don't seem right.

fj1200
10-22-2014, 01:48 PM
:blah:

Remove your references to Lady Thatcher from you title and signature as you wish to ... I suggest you do so as an act of HONESTY, unconnected with any 'deal' you wish to concoct.

It was a good offer, you should have taken it rather than rehashing your typical prattle. Now I will just have to keep on making you my debate toy. ;)

fj1200
10-22-2014, 01:58 PM
But here's the problem. For all its faults, the GOP is your only realistic chance of countering Obama and replacing him. The more that's done to compromise the GOP's chance of winning, the greater the chance of the Dems winning instead.

I can therefore conceive of an individual claiming Conservative bona fides, in order to convince others to stop voting GOP ... in order to help a LEFTIE cause, instead.

Then, there's his defence of terrorists ... with a mindset about their 'human rights' indistinguishable from Jimmy Carter's !!!

I could go on - but I've no need to. The case is made.

A. I can make the case that your knuckleheads are a net vote loser for the GOP.
B. I have to laugh when you're arguing your loser of a case to other posters.
C. Jimmy AND Mags. :laugh:
D. You're a hack on the order of Hannity.

Drummond
10-22-2014, 05:08 PM
It was a good offer, you should have taken it rather than rehashing your typical prattle. Now I will just have to keep on making you my debate toy. ;)

Your supposed 'offer' didn't even particularly make sense. You wanted me to renege on my belief that you weren't a Leftie, and in return, you'd remove references to Lady Thatcher from your avatar and signature ??

How would circumstantial evidence hinting that you WERE more Leftie than you'd admitted to being, show consistency with any claim of mine that you WEREN'T one ??

If I declare you not to be a Leftie, then, will your response be to finally prove that you ARE one ??:rolleyes:

Besides: I'll do no deals in order to encourage you to find some honesty. If you truly were a Conservative, that wouldn't even be an issue - you'd just BE honest, and that would be an end of it.
Yet again, you've managed to shoot yourself in the foot .. :lol:

Trigg
10-22-2014, 05:22 PM
UVC or a 5.25 solution of household bleach
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/lab-bio/res/psds-ftss/ebola-eng.php

Also, it spreads through direct contact with infected fluids, so basic hygiene and sanitation would go far.

it's transmitted in the same way the flu virus is, infected fluids can live on hard surfaces.

The only reason it's less dangerous/contagious than the flu is because the original source of this virus is from infected bush animals. Add that to the fact that most people who eat those animals live in small villages and you have a virus that is usually easily controlled.

This isn't a little virus that can be cured with "better hygiene", it's cured because the international community comes together and quaranteens everyone who comes in contact with the original person. If this was done with flu victims the infection rate would plummet.

But don't mistake that it isn't every bit as easily spread as the flu.

Drummond
10-22-2014, 05:27 PM
A. I can make the case that your knuckleheads are a net vote loser for the GOP.

Well, I'm in no doubt that you'd thoroughly enjoy the attempt.


B. I have to laugh when you're arguing your loser of a case to other posters.

Proof of your delusional mindset ?


C. Jimmy AND Mags. :laugh:

Your understanding of Margaret is seriously flawed, at absolute best.

Would you argue that free speech was a human right ? I think you would ...

... in which case, explain THIS, in YOUR terms ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4409447.stm


On 19 October 1988 Tory Home Secretary Douglas Hurd announced that organisations in Northern Ireland believed to support terrorism would be banned from directly broadcasting on the airwaves.

The ban affected 11 loyalist and republican organisations but Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, was the main target.

It meant that instead of hearing Gerry Adams, viewers and listeners would hear an actor's voice reading a transcript of the Sinn Fein leader's words.

Former BBC director general Lord Birt said the order came "right out of the blue".

Margaret Thatcher had no tolerance to show to the terrorist likes of the IRA. And she directed her Minister accordingly. She took something you'd think of as a 'Big Government' decision to ban their freedom to speak on British broadcasting stations.

Here's a fundamental fact you fail to grasp about Lady Thatcher .. for the sake of doing what she thought was right, she'd assume, and apply, whatever draconian powers it took to achieve her objectives. You say you hate 'Big Government' decisions, and powers ? Well ... in that case, there would've been times when you would've very sharply disagreed with what she was prepared to do.


D. You're a hack on the order of Hannity.

I don't accept Hannity to be a 'hack'. Still ... any comparison you make between myself and Mr Hannity cannot help but be complimentary to me.

For which .. I thank you.:cool:

fj1200
10-23-2014, 11:07 AM
Your supposed 'offer' didn't even particularly make sense.

It was a good offer but I've no doubt that you'll continue to make a fool of yourself. Especially considering that there is nothing dishonest about my Thatcherism. :)


Well, I'm in no doubt that you'd thoroughly enjoy the attempt.

I take no joy in idiots like you and your knuckleheads showing conservatism in a bad light and costing votes.


Proof of your delusional mindset ?

Proof that you can't even prove your case to others. Except for knuckleheads who are delusional in their own right. It's a sad affliction that you spread.


Your understanding of Margaret is seriously flawed, at absolute best.

Would you argue that free speech was a human right ? I think you would ...

... in which case, explain THIS, in YOUR terms ....

Liberty is a Natural Right, Free Speech is guaranteed in our Constitution. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an example of neither.


Margaret Thatcher had no tolerance to show to the terrorist likes of the IRA. And she directed her Minister accordingly. She took something you'd think of as a 'Big Government' decision to ban their freedom to speak on British broadcasting stations.

Here's a fundamental fact you fail to grasp about Lady Thatcher .. for the sake of doing what she thought was right, she'd assume, and apply, whatever draconian powers it took to achieve her objectives. You say you hate 'Big Government' decisions, and powers ? Well ... in that case, there would've been times when you would've very sharply disagreed with what she was prepared to do.

My understanding of Mags is based on her words. FWIW there should be no tolerance for terrorist acts and those who commit crimes of terror/war/etc. I imagine then that you'll provide examples of where Mags endorsed torture. Either that or your view of the Iron Lady is that she was malleable.


I don't accept Hannity to be a 'hack'.

Of course you don't, you also don't accept that you hold idiotic views but factually you do.

Drummond
10-23-2014, 02:00 PM
It was a good offer but I've no doubt that you'll continue to make a fool of yourself. Especially considering that there is nothing dishonest about my Thatcherism. :)


I take no joy in idiots like you and your knuckleheads showing conservatism in a bad light and costing votes.


Proof that you can't even prove your case to others. Except for knuckleheads who are delusional in their own right. It's a sad affliction that you spread.


Liberty is a Natural Right, Free Speech is guaranteed in our Constitution. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an example of neither.


My understanding of Mags is based on her words. FWIW there should be no tolerance for terrorist acts and those who commit crimes of terror/war/etc. I imagine then that you'll provide examples of where Mags endorsed torture. Either that or your view of the Iron Lady is that she was malleable.


Of course you don't, you also don't accept that you hold idiotic views but factually you do.

We've now got to that 'meltdown' point where almost everything you post is abusive in some shape or form. I've seen it before, and since you refuse to learn, I'm sure I'll see it again.

When you get to such a stage, I've learned that it's because you lack useful substance in your posting - which reduces its worth to zero. This is something you'll never admit to, regardless of how obvious it is. Which is itself a weakness of yours.

Up to 'Liberty is a Natural Right' (a diversion from my 'free speech' point ?) ... almost pure abuse. I've no need to reply.

And IS your understanding of 'Mags', as you call her, JUST limited to her words ?? Do you know anything much about her actions ? Was my proof of the curbing of IRA freedom to directly speak in the British media unknown to you ?

Perhaps you're unaware that one of her greatest domestic successes came from her anti-Trade Union legislation ? The passing of laws restricting their freedoms to act ? The limitation placed on the permitted size of a picket line, for example ?

If you understand nothing else about the politician you CLAIM to support, know that she was as autocratic as she chose to be in fixing issues. She may have had Conservative instincts, but, she created and assumed whatever powers she had to, to get things done. And if they were 'Big Government' in nature ... she carried them through regardless.

Have you heard about the Poll Tax riots ?

I think you presume to know of Lady Thatcher, when in reality you have only a passing acquaintance with her nature of politics and leadership. Truth be told, she was a great pragmatist. Sure, she had strong principles. But practicality always predominated with her.

Go away and do some much-needed research.

fj1200
10-23-2014, 02:41 PM
We've now got to that 'meltdown' point where almost everything you post is abusive in some shape or form. I've seen it before, and since you refuse to learn, I'm sure I'll see it again.

When you get to such a stage, I've learned that it's because you lack useful substance in your posting - which reduces its worth to zero. This is something you'll never admit to, regardless of how obvious it is. Which is itself a weakness of yours.

Up to 'Liberty is a Natural Right' (a diversion from my 'free speech' point ?) ... almost pure abuse. I've no need to reply.

And IS your understanding of 'Mags', as you call her, JUST limited to her words ?? Do you know anything much about her actions ? Was my proof of the curbing of IRA freedom to directly speak in the British media unknown to you ?

Perhaps you're unaware that one of her greatest domestic successes came from her anti-Trade Union legislation ? The passing of laws restricting their freedoms to act ? The limitation placed on the permitted size of a picket line, for example ?

If you understand nothing else about the politician you CLAIM to support, know that she was as autocratic as she chose to be in fixing issues. She may have had Conservative instincts, but, she created and assumed whatever powers she had to, to get things done. And if they were 'Big Government' in nature ... she carried them through regardless.

Have you heard about the Poll Tax riots ?

I think you presume to know of Lady Thatcher, when in reality you have only a passing acquaintance with her nature of politics and leadership. Truth be told, she was a great pragmatist. Sure, she had strong principles. But practicality always predominated with her.

Go away and do some much-needed research.

:laugh: Meltdown presumes anger but all I have is laughter because this is about the time where you run away. I answered your question about the IRA; was that not leftie enough for you that you have to prattle off in a different direction?

Oh man, that post was priceless. You're not even defending her as a conservative anymore, you're defending her as a pragmatist. But thank you for confirming my statements about you, you're not a conservative you're a pragmatist. You are after all a 'Thatcherite.'

At least I still think she was the Iron Lady, you think she's malleable. Does that mean I don't get her endorsement of torture? :laugh:

Priceless.

Drummond
10-23-2014, 04:03 PM
:laugh: Meltdown presumes anger but all I have is laughter because this is about the time where you run away. I answered your question about the IRA; was that not leftie enough for you that you have to prattle off in a different direction?

Oh man, that post was priceless. You're not even defending her as a conservative anymore, you're defending her as a pragmatist. But thank you for confirming my statements about you, you're not a conservative you're a pragmatist. You are after all a 'Thatcherite.'

At least I still think she was the Iron Lady, you think she's malleable. Does that mean I don't get her endorsement of torture? :laugh:

Priceless.

I think Margaret Thatcher was 'malleable' ? What on earth are you talking about ?!?

Against the Unions, she was very far from malleable. Ditto the IRA. I have already said as much. So, again, what are you talking about ?

You say 'You're not even defending her as a conservative anymore, you're defending her as a pragmatist.'

-- WHAT ??

You really haven't got a clue, have you ?

FJ, aren't you working to prove, yet again, not only the fact that you're no Conservative yourself, but that you have a very limited understanding of Conservatism.

The Left is about idealism, about propagandising in order to make their vision seem real to others, to convince others to buy into their cloud-cuckooland control-freakery, ROT. If you want to seek out the opposite to that, and be successful about it, you choose the far more pragmatic Conservative approach !!

That's not to say that Margaret Thatcher wasn't a visionary .. of sorts, certainly. But putting her ideas into action required a keen sense of pragmatism from her.

But don't take just my word for it ... see this, from David Cameron, our current, CONSERVATIVE, Prime Minister, talking about Lady Thatcher ....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577211/Thatcher-rescued-Britains-greatness.html


But if Margaret Thatcher was a radical moderniser, she was also a pragmatist. She recognised that the Ted Heath approach to trade union reform - frontal assault followed by humiliating retreat - was no good.

Instead she played a long game, literally stockpiling coal so that the country could withstand a long miners' strike. She cut back union power piece by piece, ensuring the slow death of the hard left.

The same approach characterised all the great achievements we associate with Thatcherism. Privatisation was not the centre-piece of the 1979 manifesto: it evolved gradually from the first successful experiment with selling the government's shares in BP. Full-scale denationalisation followed as a response to the growing demand for market pluralism and public share ownership.

Today we know what Thatcherism meant for our country - victory in the Cold War, victory against unbridled trade union power, the sale of council houses, the liberation of the British economy. Yet all of this was achieved gradually, by a government that knew it had to take public opinion along with it if real and lasting change was to be made.

That change was made. Margaret Thatcher is a fitting recipient of the Morgan Stanley Great Britons award, when we judge greatness as it should be judged: the scale of the legacy. She made the landscape in which we live today.

But today's circumstances are different. We still have major economic challenges ahead, largely conditioned by a decade of debt, and the failure by Gordon Brown to keep the roof in repair while the sun shone.

But the most fundamental long-term challenge we face is not the broken economy inherited by Margaret Thatcher in 1979, but our broken society, the consequence of years of failed state planning and the denial of social responsibility. Britain has falling school standards, the worst rate of family breakdown in Europe and an endemic crime problem in our inner cities.

I draw inspiration from Margaret Thatcher's record as a great moderniser and a great pragmatist.

I suppose you're now going to tell me that David Cameron, a Conservative Prime Minister and a leader of the very same Party that Lady Thatcher herself led, cannot know what he's talking about, but that YOU DO ??:rolleyes:

FJ ... really. GET SO MUCH AS A CLUE ON THIS !! You don't know your subject, you don't really know what you're talking about.:laugh::laugh:

Until you do, stop wasting my time.

And if you finally want to come clean and admit you're no Conservative ... there's probably never been a better time for you to admit it.

fj1200
10-23-2014, 04:53 PM
I think Margaret Thatcher was 'malleable' ? What on earth are you talking about ?!?

Against the Unions, she was very far from malleable. Ditto the IRA. I have already said as much. So, again, what are you talking about ?

You say 'You're not even defending her as a conservative anymore, you're defending her as a pragmatist.'

-- WHAT ??

You really haven't got a clue, have you ?

FJ, aren't you working to prove, yet again, not only the fact that you're no Conservative yourself, but that you have a very limited understanding of Conservatism.

Your own words pwn you.


And if they were 'Big Government' in nature ... she carried them through regardless.

If you're a pragmatist then you're not beholden to an ideology. Hence malleable.


The Left is about idealism, about propagandising in order to make their vision seem real to others, to convince others to buy into their cloud-cuckooland control-freakery, ROT. If you want to seek out the opposite to that, and be successful about it, you choose the far more pragmatic Conservative approach !!

That's not to say that Margaret Thatcher wasn't a visionary .. of sorts, certainly. But putting her ideas into action required a keen sense of pragmatism from her.

But don't take just my word for it ... see this, from David Cameron, our current, CONSERVATIVE, Prime Minister, talking about Lady Thatcher ....

I suppose you're now going to tell me that David Cameron, a Conservative Prime Minister and a leader of the very same Party that Lady Thatcher herself led, cannot know what he's talking about, but that YOU DO ??:rolleyes:

What? That he agrees that she was pragmatist? I haven't disputed that. You're the one who claims she carried through "big government in nature" pragmatic solutions.


FJ ... really. GET SO MUCH AS A CLUE ON THIS !! You don't know your subject, you don't really know what you're talking about.:laugh::laugh:

Until you do, stop wasting my time.

And if you finally want to come clean and admit you're no Conservative ... there's probably never been a better time for you to admit it.

Remember, you're my debate toy. ;) Or you could let me know when I haven't proffered a conservative solution. And don't think I don't know what you're running away from.

Drummond
10-24-2014, 08:39 AM
Your own words pwn you.


If you're a pragmatist then you're not beholden to an ideology. Hence malleable.


What? That he agrees that she was pragmatist? I haven't disputed that. You're the one who claims she carried through "big government in nature" pragmatic solutions.


Remember, you're my debate toy. ;) Or you could let me know when I haven't proffered a conservative solution. And don't think I don't know what you're running away from.

Thank you .... this is just further proof that you're not a Conservative. You don't comprehend what one is !!

Conservatism is a distinct philosophy. What you're not getting, because you're NOT one ... is that pragmatism is a cornerstone of what Conservatism is all about. Conservatives live in the real word ... they relate to it in its own terms. Pragmatism is therefore necessary.

Margaret Thatcher, as I take it even YOU cannot dream of denying, was a Conservative. She functioned as one as Prime Minister, using pragmatism to strengthen that function. In the account I posted yesterday, one originating from David Cameron, he gave an account of how her pragmatic approach was applied !

And at no time has Mr Cameron claimed that Margaret, AS A PRAGMATIST, ever strayed from Conservatism.

As for 'claiming' that Margaret carried through 'big Government in nature' pragmatic solutions, I make no such 'claim'. A claim falls short of the truth, and it is the TRUTH that she applied that pragmatism in that way. If you wish to question this in any way, then you are at odds with history, and, for that matter, what Margaret was all about.

Here's the truth about you. You really cannot relate pragmatism to a philosophy, can you ? This, of course, would be very true of a LEFTIE mindset - obviously so. And, it's true of YOU.

You limitations betray the truth of you, showing your pretensions to be as bogus as they are.

I really have no need to add any more. You are not what you keep claiming to be, and you're so far removed from what you say you are, that you cannot see how obvious your mistakes are.

You continue to be a waste of my time.

Oh, and ... Margaret, 'malleable' .. ?? Hilarious. You haven't got a clue.

fj1200
10-24-2014, 09:15 AM
Thank you .... this is just further proof that you're not a Conservative. You don't comprehend what one is !!

Conservatism is a distinct philosophy. What you're not getting, because you're NOT one ... is that pragmatism is a cornerstone of what Conservatism is all about. Conservatives live in the real word ... they relate to it in its own terms. Pragmatism is therefore necessary.

Margaret Thatcher, as I take it even YOU cannot dream of denying, was a Conservative. She functioned as one as Prime Minister, using pragmatism to strengthen that function. In the account I posted yesterday, one originating from David Cameron, he gave an account of how her pragmatic approach was applied !

And at no time has Mr Cameron claimed that Margaret, AS A PRAGMATIST, ever strayed from Conservatism.

As for 'claiming' that Margaret carried through 'big Government in nature' pragmatic solutions, I make no such 'claim'. A claim falls short of the truth, and it is the TRUTH that she applied that pragmatism in that way. If you wish to question this in any way, then you are at odds with history, and, for that matter, what Margaret was all about.

Here's the truth about you. You really cannot relate pragmatism to a philosophy, can you ? This, of course, would be very true of a LEFTIE mindset - obviously so. And, it's true of YOU.

You limitations betray the truth of you, showing your pretensions to be as bogus as they are.

I really have no need to add any more. You are not what you keep claiming to be, and you're so far removed from what you say you are, that you cannot see how obvious your mistakes are.

You continue to be a waste of my time.

Oh, and ... Margaret, 'malleable' .. ?? Hilarious. You haven't got a clue.

I understand conservatism and I understand pragmatism, those are two distinct and separate things. When the right says 2+2=4 and the left says 2+2=6 and a pragmatist, conservative or otherwise, agrees to 2+2=5 then no true conservative would that 2+2=5 is conservatism. The problem for you becomes your conflicting view points; On the one hand you claim to be a conservative but on the other you claim that you are "Proudly Thatcherite." Those are two distinct and separate things if you buy into the claim of pragmatism. Now I'm sure that Mags was squarely conservative and I'm sure she had to pragmatically get things done but to claim that everything she did was conservative because she did it is soundly false.

There is no way that you can honestly square those viewpoints. Oh, and as far you not making the 'claim..." I leave you your own words.


And if they were 'Big Government' in nature ... she carried them through regardless.

;)

Drummond
10-24-2014, 10:17 AM
I understand conservatism and I understand pragmatism, those are two distinct and separate things. When the right says 2+2=4 and the left says 2+2=6 and a pragmatist, conservative or otherwise, agrees to 2+2=5 then no true conservative would that 2+2=5 is conservatism. The problem for you becomes your conflicting view points; On the one hand you claim to be a conservative but on the other you claim that you are "Proudly Thatcherite." Those are two distinct and separate things if you buy into the claim of pragmatism. Now I'm sure that Mags was squarely conservative and I'm sure she had to pragmatically get things done but to claim that everything she did was conservative because she did it is soundly false.

There is no way that you can honestly square those viewpoints. Oh, and as far you not making the 'claim..." I leave you your own words.

;)

Hilarious. You keep shooting yourself in the foot, but you're blind to the reality of it. And, YOU, are a CONSERVATIVE of ANY description .. ?????

-- Nuts !! --

I make no claims about pragmatism - I'm relaying the truth of it. The truth of this is as I've relayed it to you already.

No doubt you'll blind yourself to that which you refuse to see ... which is typically Leftie of you. The links I add to this post will make no impact on you. Will they ?

Here they are, all the same. Get your Leftieism into gear, quick, to make sure you reject them !!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism


Thatcher was not an ideologue, Utley argued, but a pragmatic politician; and he gave the examples of her refusal to radically reform the welfare state, and her avoidance of a miners' strike in 1981 at a time when the Government was not ready to handle it.

http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/politics/how-similar-was-thatcherism-to-traditional-conservatism-1.html


This policy although could be argued along the ideological lines of conservatism that this contradicted the organic society, it does however reiterate the pragmatic nature of Thatcher's doctrine, which itself is central to traditional conservatism.

Taking notes, FJ ? -- "CENTRAL TO TRADITIONAL CONSERVATISM" --

.. Or ARE you just doing the Leftie thing, and rejecting it all, just because you choose to ?

http://theconversation.com/the-death-of-margaret-thatcher-and-the-legacy-of-thatcherism-13324


Famously, she described Mikhail Gorbachev as a man with whom she “could do business".

This suggests a pragmatic element within Thatcherism. It would be strange indeed for an ideology that calls for a fresh and vital approach to stale and conventional thinking to refuse change when it emerges. Thatcherism is a cautiously optimistic ideology. It warns of dangers but does not pass-up opportunities. Again, the Gorbachev phenomenon is illustrative in this regard. Thatcher urged her western allies to treat the Soviet leader with “realism and strength…we shall reach our judgments not on words, not on intentions, not on promises, but on actions and results".

Likewise, pragmatic assessments need not preclude moral conclusions. When Margaret Thatcher consented to the American air-strike against Libya in 1986 – an action finally brought to a conclusion by Barack Obama in 2011 – she did so after considerable calculation as to how the West’s moral case against Gaddafi would be furthered.

Getting the message yet ?

If you're at all likely to take the smallest notice, I'll see if I can dig out even MORE proof of the truth of Margaret, her pragmatism, and how central pragmatism was to her leadership - the application of her principles - and, indeed, the place it operationally holds in modern Conservatism. BUT, you'll have to be willing to learn from what I post.

If you REALLY can't escape your Leftie delusional state, no matter what quantity of evidence comes your way ... then I'll consider it a waste of time to try.

Your choice, Mr Leftie ....

fj1200
10-24-2014, 02:03 PM
Hilarious. You keep shooting yourself in the foot, but you're blind to the reality of it. And, YOU, are a CONSERVATIVE of ANY description .. ?????

-- Nuts !! --

I make no claims about pragmatism - I'm relaying the truth of it. The truth of this is as I've relayed it to you already.

No doubt you'll blind yourself to that which you refuse to see ... which is typically Leftie of you. The links I add to this post will make no impact on you. Will they ?

Here they are, all the same. Get your Leftieism into gear, quick, to make sure you reject them !!!

What have I rejected? I agree that she was squarely a conservative and that she had to be pragmatic in getting things done; that's called governing in a Parliamentarian system, we have to do the same thing sometimes. But the point you need to ignore and downplay is that I don't have a problem with Mags, I'm just pointing out to you that you are forced to go a long way around her record and your claim of "proudly Thatcherite" to retain some myth of you being a conservative. I mean, you can't really square your words any other way. I didn't force you to proclaim the following did I?



And if they were 'Big Government' in nature ... she carried them through regardless.



Taking notes, FJ ? -- "CENTRAL TO TRADITIONAL CONSERVATISM" --

.. Or ARE you just doing the Leftie thing, and rejecting it all, just because you choose to ?

http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/politics/how-similar-was-thatcherism-to-traditional-conservatism-1.html

Student written piece eh? How far did you have to look to hang your argument on a term paper? ;) Perhaps if the "student written piece" didn't really contradict itself.


What has been highlighted from the aforementioned aspects of 'Thatcherism' is that although it differs in many areas from traditional conservative thought, it adheres to a set of ideas that deny ideology and reject the dogmatic approach that other ideologies do.

Perhaps if you even knew what you were linking to.


Getting the message yet ?

If you're at all likely to take the smallest notice, I'll see if I can dig out even MORE proof of the truth of Margaret, her pragmatism, and how central pragmatism was to her leadership - the application of her principles - and, indeed, the place it operationally holds in modern Conservatism. BUT, you'll have to be willing to learn from what I post.

If you REALLY can't escape your Leftie delusional state, no matter what quantity of evidence comes your way ... then I'll consider it a waste of time to try.

Your choice, Mr Leftie ....

Yup, the message is that you finally said to much and now you have to sprint in a completely different direction. At some point you're going to have to give up just saying that I'm not a conservative and actually prove it. You just screaming it ever louder makes you look foolish.

Trigg
10-24-2014, 07:03 PM
The common influenza virus is more contagious and infects/kills more people than Ebola.
Trouble is, the flu is old hat to the media and doesn't cause the amount of panic that Ebola does. If you need viewers 24/7, you need panic.



The flu virus isn't anymore contagious than ebola, it's just ignored, which is why it infects/kills more people.


They are both spread through contact.

Again, if the international community treated every flu victim the same way they treated every ebola victim, hunting down everyone they came in contact with and isolating them, flu infections and deaths would greatly decrease.

Drummond
10-25-2014, 04:06 AM
What have I rejected? I agree that she was squarely a conservative and that she had to be pragmatic in getting things done; that's called governing in a Parliamentarian system, we have to do the same thing sometimes. But the point you need to ignore and downplay is that I don't have a problem with Mags, I'm just pointing out to you that you are forced to go a long way around her record and your claim of "proudly Thatcherite" to retain some myth of you being a conservative. I mean, you can't really square your words any other way. I didn't force you to proclaim the following did I?





Student written piece eh? How far did you have to look to hang your argument on a term paper? ;) Perhaps if the "student written piece" didn't really contradict itself.



Perhaps if you even knew what you were linking to.



Yup, the message is that you finally said to much and now you have to sprint in a completely different direction. At some point you're going to have to give up just saying that I'm not a conservative and actually prove it. You just screaming it ever louder makes you look foolish.

Actually .. YOU have proved it. Right here, on this thread. You just won't accept reality when it's in front of you .. typically Leftie in itself.

You cling to your thoughts, beliefs, no matter what's put in front of you to show you that you're wrong. From the British PM's own statements ... to all other evidence ... you'll reject it all, you'll twist and turn, ANYTHING but have your misconceptions challenged.

Lefties cling to their propaganda, not bending for anything. This describes your position right now.

You definitely are a waste of my time, Leftie.

fj1200
10-25-2014, 04:34 PM
Actually .. YOU have proved it. Right here, on this thread. You just won't accept reality when it's in front of you .. typically Leftie in itself.

You cling to your thoughts, beliefs, no matter what's put in front of you to show you that you're wrong. From the British PM's own statements ... to all other evidence ... you'll reject it all, you'll twist and turn, ANYTHING but have your misconceptions challenged.

Lefties cling to their propaganda, not bending for anything. This describes your position right now.

You definitely are a waste of my time, Leftie.

Run along little one. When the going gets tough you get going. I guess I'll have to educate you again, lefties make arguments FOR big government and the only one around here doing that is you. :)


And if they were 'Big Government' in nature ... she carried them through regardless.

As far as me supposedly rejecting "all other evidence" I've already accepted your assertion that Mags is conservative and that she was pragmatic in her governance. The problem for you is that you've attached yourself not to an ideology but to an individual and it's the individual who may have to compromise ideals to get things done. I'll argue that Reagan was a staunch conservative but when it came to "pragmatically" governing he signed his name to some things that were not conservative in nature; Social Security reform, EITC, amnesty, etc. For some reason you feel called to defend some big government solutions because of the who. You should go find another student term paper to help you brush up. ;)


I imagine then that you'll provide examples of where Mags endorsed torture.

:dunno:

Drummond
10-26-2014, 04:12 PM
Run along little one. When the going gets tough you get going. I guess I'll have to educate you again, lefties make arguments FOR big government and the only one around here doing that is you. :)



As far as me supposedly rejecting "all other evidence" I've already accepted your assertion that Mags is conservative and that she was pragmatic in her governance. The problem for you is that you've attached yourself not to an ideology but to an individual and it's the individual who may have to compromise ideals to get things done. I'll argue that Reagan was a staunch conservative but when it came to "pragmatically" governing he signed his name to some things that were not conservative in nature; Social Security reform, EITC, amnesty, etc. For some reason you feel called to defend some big government solutions because of the who. You should go find another student term paper to help you brush up. ;)



:dunno:

Brilliant stuff. You've now spotted the flaw in your argument, you know it IS one, but instead of admitting you've been wrong, you try to fudge your ridiculous mistake.

But here's the thing .. if you'd been the Conservative you've claimed you are, you'd never have put yourself in your contradictory position.

From your latest weak offering, I can summarise it thus: according to you, Conservatives are Conservatives, except when they're .. not ... yet you're still critical of what it is that makes them .. 'not' .. (!!) ..:rolleyes:

Not particularly logical. If at all.

Let's recap.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?47132-Ebola-Vs&p=711550#post711550

Here, you saw no connection at all between Margaret's Conservatism and her pragmatism, because here, you were rejecting that she could be both. Your words ..


Oh man, that post was priceless. You're not even defending her as a conservative anymore, you're defending her as a pragmatist. But thank you for confirming my statements about you, you're not a conservative you're a pragmatist. You are after all a 'Thatcherite.'

No room for doubt here, you were even derisory in so much as considering the two attributes as ever possibly coexisting within a Conservative.

Further on, in a couple of posts, I gave you a number of links which provided evidence you were wrong. To cite but one quote from them .. this from a Conservative Prime Minister, a successor of Margaret's, leading the same Party she'd led, decades earlier:


I draw inspiration from Margaret Thatcher's record as a great moderniser and a great pragmatist.

Now, why would a Conservative PRIME MINISTER consider that INSPIRATIONAL ? From your original reckoning, pragmatism should DISQUALIFY him as a Conservative !!! But he was praising Margaret Thatcher for that !!

.. whoops !! .. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

It gets worse.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?47132-Ebola-Vs&p=711565#post711565

Your words here (.. after you'd failed to comprehend your blunder !) ..


If you're a pragmatist then you're not beholden to an ideology. Hence malleable.

Well, then - either David Cameron, a Conservative Prime Minister, didn't understand Conservatism (!!), or, he was claiming that arguably THE FINEST BRITISH CONSERVATIVE OF THE MODERN AGE, WASN'T A CONSERVATIVE (... oh yes, and 'malleable' ..) !!

FJ, why are your blunders invariably such whoppers ???

From ..

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?47132-Ebola-Vs&p=711670#post711670


I understand conservatism and I understand pragmatism, those are two distinct and separate things.

.. you persist with your error. And ...


On the one hand you claim to be a conservative but on the other you claim that you are "Proudly Thatcherite." Those are two distinct and separate things if you buy into the claim of pragmatism.

... you still aren't getting it here, either ...

A further attempt was made to teach you, in my following post. But here, you corrected yourself, to an interesting degree ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?47132-Ebola-Vs&p=711719#post711719


What have I rejected? I agree that she was squarely a conservative and that she had to be pragmatic in getting things done

.... which shows the ground you had to make up, from these original words of yours ..


Oh man, that post was priceless. You're not even defending her as a conservative anymore, you're defending her as a pragmatist. But thank you for confirming my statements about you, you're not a conservative you're a pragmatist.

.... doesn't it, FJ ?

Oh, you tried to cover for yourself as you continued blathering. Fact is, though, that it even dawned on YOU that your lack of understanding of Conservatism .. BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ONE, YOURSELF ... had caused you to trip up. Blunder understood, you couldn't be honest enough to admit it.

You've tried attacking on the grounds that 'Big Government' decisions aren't Conservative. To which I'd simply say that ideally, they are not to be preferred. However, at times, situations DO call for them .. and a pragmatist recognises that. Margaret was a pragmatist, a quality which earned her much praise FROM A CONSERVATIVE PM .. because, as you YOURSELF eventually admitted,


I agree that she was squarely a conservative and that she had to be pragmatic in getting things done

Yes, FJ. EXACTLY.

9/11. Consider : what else but a series of 'Big Government' decisions could've possibly answered the events of that day ?

To Britain, and the chaos caused by Trade Union militancy in the late '70's. Margaret applied 'Big Government' decisions to fixing that, via legislation.

More, from British politics: the 'share ownereship' revolution. The 'council house purchase' revolution'. Section 28, a law clamping down on gay promotion. Each were Big Government decisions, AND EACH CAME FROM A CONSERVATIVE PRIME MINISTER, APPLYING A NECESSARILY PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF DISTINCTLY CONSERVATIVE OBJECTIVES.

FJ ... your ignorance about Margaret Thatcher, your inability to grasp a cornerstone of Conservatism in action, your characteristically Left-wing inability to escape from your propagandist rut, into which you'd locked yourself .. all of this points to two, obvious, facts.

1. YOU ARE A FRAUD.

2. YOU ARE A TOTAL WASTE OF MY TIME.

fj1200
10-26-2014, 05:18 PM
As I said before you are my debate toy. I'm a "waste of your time" yet you persist in your long winded arguments avoiding the key points. I have offered no contradictory position, I'm not the one claiming to be a conservative yet defending big government decisions; which one of us is doing that again? ;) This whole debate is like you saying that you're a Christian but stating you only believe what the Pope says because you're a Anglican-ite. ;) If there is any flaw in my argument it's thinking that you're able to see through your imagination.

But here you are yet again defending the big government solution. Pragmatism aside how is the "Big Government decision to fix that" superior to the Small Government decision?


9/11. Consider : what else but a series of 'Big Government' decisions could've possibly answered the events of that day ?

To Britain, and the chaos caused by Trade Union militancy in the late '70's. Margaret applied 'Big Government' decisions to fixing that, via legislation.

FWIW the quotes you pull don't really say what you think they say. :) And how's that list of my "left-wing" positions coming? Your's seem to be coming along just fine. :laugh:

Oh, and defense of State is not a small government position.

Drummond
10-26-2014, 09:28 PM
As I said before you are my debate toy. I'm a "waste of your time" yet you persist in your long winded arguments avoiding the key points. I have offered no contradictory position, I'm not the one claiming to be a conservative yet defending big government decisions; which one of us is doing that again? ;) This whole debate is like you saying that you're a Christian but stating you only believe what the Pope says because you're a Anglican-ite. ;) If there is any flaw in my argument it's thinking that you're able to see through your imagination.

But here you are yet again defending the big government solution. Pragmatism aside how is the "Big Government decision to fix that" superior to the Small Government decision?



FWIW the quotes you pull don't really say what you think they say. :) And how's that list of my "left-wing" positions coming? Your's seem to be coming along just fine. :laugh:

Oh, and defense of State is not a small government position.

Argued just like a Leftie. You're still pushing your propaganda, in defiance of reality right in front of your nose. Never mind 'pragmatism aside', try seeing the FULL picture, not just those bits you prefer to see.

You already have the answers from me that you need, but you're so busy denying reality, you fail to comprehend your position.

One answer that you have, which you've obviously ignored, is:-


You've tried attacking on the grounds that 'Big Government' decisions aren't Conservative. To which I'd simply say that ideally, they are not to be preferred. However, at times, situations DO call for them .. and a pragmatist recognises that.
Debate with you is useless. Your Leftieism keeps you in la-la land, only seeing what your form of Leftie thought allows you to see. That your position is - and remains - contradictory makes no impact on you.

In this thread, you've been given a window into Conservatism in action .. how it operates, how it adapts to reality when necessary. Your utter inability at adaptation blinds you to this.

So, 'Mr' Leftie, I'll leave you to your delusional state. It is, after all, all you really have.:laugh::laugh::trolls:

Drummond
10-26-2014, 09:51 PM
Argued just like a Leftie. You're still pushing your propaganda, in defiance of reality right in front of your nose. Never mind 'pragmatism aside', try seeing the FULL picture, not just those bits you prefer to see.

You already have the answers from me that you need, but you're so busy denying reality, you fail to comprehend your position.

One answer that you have, which you've obviously ignored, is:-


Debate with you is useless. Your Leftieism keeps you in la-la land, only seeing what your form of Leftie thought allows you to see. That your position is - and remains - contradictory makes no impact on you.

In this thread, you've been given a window into Conservatism in action .. how it operates, how it adapts to reality when necessary. Your utter inability at adaptation blinds you to this.

So, 'Mr' Leftie, I'll leave you to your delusional state. It is, after all, all you really have.:laugh::laugh::trolls:

Oh, by the way ... it'll be helpful to get back to the subject-matter of this thread, as this in itself lends itself to the form of argument I've tried to make ....

EBOLA

What we have in my part of the world is Leftie blindness so strong, that it disassociates political correctness from lifesaving commonsense.

The EU has, in place, what it insists is an inviolable position of that of allowing free movement of citizens between different Member States. A Frenchman can travel to Germany, for example, as if territorial borders didn't exist. Or, anyone in mainland Europe from a member EU State can come across to the UK.

The British Prime Minister wants to renegotiate such a 'right', to regain control of British borders.

The EU - courtesy of Barroso, the outgoing EU President - says 'NO' ... the principle of free movement is a fundamental right in the EU. That Ebola might (and probably will) establish itself in EU countries (and Spain has already had its case of it) makes not the slightest difference to Barroso, nor to other EU leaders. If it spreads, it spreads. If that spread is helped by open borders, then it is. Leftie political correctness is blind to that reality, and shows no sign of considering it .. at all.

What that situation needs is a hefty dose of pragmatic consideration. What it needs is Big Government decision-making meeting the challenge, realistically, as only IT can (.. perhaps you know of a 'Small Government' remedy, FJ ?)

But, no. What we have IS LEFTIE MYOPIA GETTING IN THE WAY OF REALITY.

Never mind, though, FJ. These words are wasted on you. Leftie blindness is a truly terrible thing.

gabosaurus
10-27-2014, 12:40 AM
This thread has gotten way off topic. It needs to contract ebola and die.

Jeff
10-27-2014, 06:59 AM
This thread has gotten way off topic. It needs to contract ebola and die.

That's cold Gabs :laugh::laugh::laugh: But funny

Drummond
10-27-2014, 08:18 AM
This thread has gotten way off topic. It needs to contract ebola and die.

Yes, hasn't it ? FJ's good at that sort of thing ...

But no matter. My previous post was an attempt to steer it back on course.

And, for that matter, to keep its subject matter ongoing. Sorry to see you'd rather it died a death.

A certain EU President would approve of your stance, I think.

fj1200
10-27-2014, 10:23 AM
FJ's good

If you weren't trolling like the hypocrite you are.


Never mind, though, FJ. These words are wasted on you. Leftie blindness is a truly terrible thing.

You silly debate toy you. :laugh:

fj1200
10-27-2014, 10:34 AM
... 'pragmatism aside' ...

... Conservatism in action ...

You sure are one mindless parroting fool. I see your "agenda" prattle is popping up again. What's my agenda? Make you look the fool??? If you didn't make it so easy. :slap: Case in point would be the corner I've backed you in to. So are you going to argue FOR the big government solution that you support or are you going to argue FOR the small government solution you don't support?

But I guess I already have your answer as your position is that "conservatism in action" is...


And if they were 'Big Government' in nature ... she carried them through regardless.


Margaret applied 'Big Government' decisions to fixing that, via legislation.


What it needs is Big Government decision-making

With conservative "allies" like you who needs enemies? :rolleyes:

Drummond
10-27-2014, 10:40 AM
If you weren't trolling like the hypocrite you are.



You silly debate toy you. :laugh:

Still trying to hijack the thread ?

-- And YOU accuse ME of trolling ? Incredible ..

Drummond
10-27-2014, 10:45 AM
You sure are one mindless parroting fool. I see your "agenda" prattle is popping up again. What's my agenda? Make you look the fool??? If you didn't make it so easy. :slap: Case in point would be the corner I've backed you in to. So are you going to argue FOR the big government solution that you support or are you going to argue FOR the small government solution you don't support?

But I guess I already have your answer as your position is that "conservatism in action" is...







With conservative "allies" like you who needs enemies? :rolleyes:

... so, then ... you, the one-time 'Ultimate Thatcherite', now DISAPPROVE of her??

You must do ... because her pragmatism resulted in her choosing Big Government methods whenever she saw a need for it.

Maybe you have learned something, after all.

By the way - my suggestion : STOP HIJACKING THE THREAD.

How much longer will it take for you to admit to being a Leftie .. ??

In passing - I don't mind your new signature text. After all, you're telling the truth in it (congrats on that -).

... so .... gone off of 'Mags', then .. ? It was bound to happen. How couldn't it .... since she was a CONSERVATIVE Leader, and known to be a thoroughly exceptional one !

fj1200
10-27-2014, 02:04 PM
Still trying to hijack the thread ?

-- And YOU accuse ME of trolling ? Incredible ..

Well if you hadn't made this thread, like so many others, an incredible display of your mindlessness then...

fj1200
10-27-2014, 02:12 PM
... so, then ... you, the one-time 'Ultimate Thatcherite', now DISAPPROVE of her??

You must do ... because her pragmatism resulted in her choosing Big Government methods whenever she saw a need for it.

Maybe you have learned something, after all.

By the way - my suggestion : STOP HIJACKING THE THREAD.

How much longer will it take for you to admit to being a Leftie .. ??

In passing - I don't mind your new signature text. After all, you're telling the truth in it (congrats on that -).

... so .... gone off of 'Mags', then .. ? It was bound to happen. How couldn't it .... since she was a CONSERVATIVE Leader, and known to be a thoroughly exceptional one !

Running away from the tough questions again I see. Not that I'm surprised. What would make you think I disapprove of her? As I've said before Mags is awesome. You're the one who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag. I'm just waiting for someone who claims to be a conservative, that would be you, to speak in defense of big government. And since I've been calling you a big government hack for so long I guess it's about time that you fess up to my accurate description. You're defending big government now so I must have been on the money before... since you agree with the truth in my signature that is. ;) Do your knucklehead pals realize you've forsaken conservatism?

So unless you can point out my big government, i.e. leftie, positions then you'll just have to admit your failure.


...


:laugh:

I couldn't say that with a straight face, who am I kidding. :laugh:

Drummond
10-27-2014, 03:00 PM
Running away from the tough questions again I see. Not that I'm surprised. What would make you think I disapprove of her? As I've said before Mags is awesome. You're the one who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag. I'm just waiting for someone who claims to be a conservative, that would be you, to speak in defense of big government. And since I've been calling you a big government hack for so long I guess it's about time that you fess up to my accurate description. You're defending big government now so I must have been on the money before... since you agree with the truth in my signature that is. ;) Do your knucklehead pals realize you've forsaken conservatism?

So unless you can point out my big government, i.e. leftie, positions then you'll just have to admit your failure.


...


:laugh:

I couldn't say that with a straight face, who am I kidding. :laugh:

That I would want to argue in defence of big Government is a fiction of your own creation.

What I've sought to do - and which your Leftie outlook has utterly failed to comprehend - is show you the truth that, on occasions, 'big Government' decision-making is necessary. It simply is.

The point of Conservatism is that it does not seek to intrude upon the individual - or his/her rights - UNLESS IT'S REALLY NECESSARY. But, you being a Leftie, you cannot comprehend the place of pragmatism within a greater philosophy, can you .. what Leftie ever could ?

I've supplied examples of that already. Review them and you'll see my point ... IF your philosophy can cope with that extent of realism ....

'Mags' was INDEED 'awesome' ... though, ironically, what helps prove that is a quality you say you disapprove of. You are in the ridiculous situation of disapproving of the methodology she adopted, whilst still heaping praise on her ....

Which means just one thing.

YOU CANNOT BE FOR REAL. You see 'Conservatism' through the distorting lens of Left-wing thought processes and cannot escape, nor even properly comprehend, the nature of that failing.

-- Now -- are you going to STOP hijacking this thread ?????!?

fj1200
10-28-2014, 10:49 AM
That I would want to argue in defence of big Government is a fiction of your own creation.

... 'big Government' decision-making is necessary. It simply is.

- Now -- are you going to STOP hijacking this thread ?????!?

Do you need the quotes again? Perhaps you could explain how in British Bizarro World that you defending Big Government is the same as Small Government. You know what? Nevermind because you would look even more foolish if that is possible. On this side of the pond you would be derided as a RINO and rightfully so.

Now, one more time. Point out my big government leftie positions you moron.

Drummond
10-28-2014, 12:19 PM
Do you need the quotes again? Perhaps you could explain how in British Bizarro World that you defending Big Government is the same as Small Government. You know what? Nevermind because you would look even more foolish if that is possible. On this side of the pond you would be derided as a RINO and rightfully so.

Now, one more time. Point out my big government leftie positions you moron.

Evidently, asking you to stop hijacking this thread was a waste of time. Now, why am I not surprised ? .. H'm .. ??

I haven't said that Big Government is the same as Small Government - that's just some trolling fiction from you. What I HAVE said - please pay attention this time !! - is that pragmatism has its place in Conservative Government, that on occasions that very pragmatism calls for decisions that can't be other than Big Government ones.

Kindly explain how Margaret Thatcher qualifies as a 'RINO' (because she must, if I accept your premise) ....

Taking on Unions, as she did, via legislation. Section 28 - and more besides, already listed. All of it 'Big Government', all of it entered into by Lady Thatcher without any hesitation. And David Cameron has praised this, and other displays of her pragmatism, as the Conservative PRIME MINISTER that he is. But you reject all of this evidence .. and, for why ?

Because ....... you are a LEFTIE. Lefties attack Conservatives - so do you. Not least here, on this forum .... and on a daily basis.

You want to see terrorists in the kindliest way imaginable. So do Lefties (... led by Jimmy Carter ?).

You say 'BO sucks', yet, whenever any thread makes a strong argument for his impeachment (for example) ... I've never seen you lend support to any such argument.

Now recently, you've even shown disapproval of Lady Thatcher's own style of Conservative leadership. Tut decidedly tut ....

You dripfeed evidence of your Leftieism a little at a time, but over time, IT DOES SURFACE.

So it will continue to ....

.... won't it ...... LEFTIE ......

Now, I'll ask AGAIN - STOP HIJACKING THIS THREAD ....

fj1200
10-28-2014, 02:33 PM
Evidently, I'm an moron who can't answer questions...

;)

Well, you're kind of a hypocrite so I don't particularly care what you ask. :) You're also not very good at answering questions except to reference the failure that is your imagination. Besides, I called YOU a RINO because you reject small government and defend big government.

And how many times have I told you that I don't "attack conservatives"? I do however point out where people's arguments may be wrong and you and your idiot knucklehead friends are wrong aplenty. As to your impeachment prattle; hardly ever is a strong argument made and when one may be made it's buried under scores of stupid arguments. I'm sorry that you don't understand what I've told you repeatedly.

Torture? Here's someone who was out front of Jimmy:


Recently, especially in Asia, some governments have urged that the standards of Human Rights laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights attached to the UN Charter, are Western and therefore not suitable for Asia and parts of the Third World whose cultures and circumstances are different. But the dispositions of human nature are the same everywhere—the affection of mother for child, the wish to do better for the family, the desire of the child to please, the recognition of courage and heroism, and the suffering and torture are felt the same by all human beings. Further, I have no difficulty in accepting the view that human nature is naturally endowed with a moral sense and a disposition (albeit if sometimes fragile) to make moral judgements. It's not only Western man who is created in God's image.

And of course:


... she instinctively knew that complicity with torture was an affront to everything that Britain stands for – above all, our respect for tolerance, decency and the rule of law.

:dunno:

Drummond
10-28-2014, 09:48 PM
;)

Well, you're kind of a hypocrite so I don't particularly care what you ask. :) You're also not very good at answering questions except to reference the failure that is your imagination. Besides, I called YOU a RINO because you reject small government and defend big government.

And how many times have I told you that I don't "attack conservatives"? I do however point out where people's arguments may be wrong and you and your idiot knucklehead friends are wrong aplenty. As to your impeachment prattle; hardly ever is a strong argument made and when one may be made it's buried under scores of stupid arguments. I'm sorry that you don't understand what I've told you repeatedly.

Torture? Here's someone who was out front of Jimmy:



And of course:



:dunno:

STILL hijacking, I see. It takes a committed troll to so completely defy requests to stop doing so.

And if you find you can't resist the troll trick of rewriting someone else's post, at least try to be grammatically correct about it ! 'I'm AN moron', was your semi-literate rewrite ! Pathetic ...

Corrections are due from your last post. Firstly, and as I've made clear, I do not 'reject' small Government. I simply say that, as any pragmatist (e.g Margaret Thatcher) would have told you, small Government isn't the answer to every political problem out there. On occasions, an alternative must be employed.

That's simply how it is. Margaret understood it. You, as the ex-'Ultimate Thatcherite', if genuine as one (which you're NOT, of course) should as well.

Secondly .. your claim that you don't attack Conservatives is arguably your most blatant lie of them all. You seemingly never STOP doing so. And so much so that any elaboration on that is surely unnecessary to anyone who ever reads your stuff.

I note your defence of your anti-impeachment line. There are Conservatives here - yes, those you are also pleased to attack - who would, indeed have, been in strong disagreement with you on that score.

But then, for someone who 'sucks', you do defend that character when the chips are really down.

I note your need to quote from a non-Western source to criticise UN human rights standards. This in answer to the torture issue ?

And consider this: terrorists do their own torturing. You seem to have overlooked that in your ongoing zeal to identify with them.

So when Lady Thatcher rejected complicity with torture - and that, note, ON LAW AND ORDER GROUNDS - could it also be said that she was, in no small measure, being anti-terrorist when taking that line ?

[She was no friend of the IRA. She made one of her 'Big Government' decisions in banning terrorist soundtracks from being aired, remember.]

On anything and everything else ...... perhaps my best and most appropriate response, to the extent you even deserve one ....


:threadjacked::threadjacked::threadjacked::mooning ::trolls::trolls::laugh2: :fu::trolls:

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-29-2014, 07:56 AM
STILL hijacking, I see. It takes a committed troll to so completely defy requests to stop doing so.

And if you find you can't resist the troll trick of rewriting someone else's post, at least try to be grammatically correct about it ! 'I'm AN moron', was your semi-literate rewrite ! Pathetic ...

Corrections are due from your last post. Firstly, and as I've made clear, I do not 'reject' small Government. I simply say that, as any pragmatist (e.g Margaret Thatcher) would have told you, small Government isn't the answer to every political problem out there. On occasions, an alternative must be employed.

That's simply how it is. Margaret understood it. You, as the ex-'Ultimate Thatcherite', if genuine as one (which you're NOT, of course) should as well.

Secondly .. your claim that you don't attack Conservatives is arguably your most blatant lie of them all. You seemingly never STOP doing so. And so much so that any elaboration on that is surely unnecessary to anyone who ever reads your stuff.

I note your defence of your anti-impeachment line. There are Conservatives here - yes, those you are also pleased to attack - who would, indeed have, been in strong disagreement with you on that score.

But then, for someone who 'sucks', you do defend that character when the chips are really down.

I note your need to quote from a non-Western source to criticise UN human rights standards. This in answer to the torture issue ?

And consider this: terrorists do their own torturing. You seem to have overlooked that in your ongoing zeal to identify with them.

So when Lady Thatcher rejected complicity with torture - and that, note, ON LAW AND ORDER GROUNDS - could it also be said that she was, in no small measure, being anti-terrorist when taking that line ?

[She was no friend of the IRA. She made one of her 'Big Government' decisions in banning terrorist soundtracks from being aired, remember.]

On anything and everything else ...... perhaps my best and most appropriate response, to the extent you even deserve one ....


:threadjacked::threadjacked::threadjacked::mooning ::trolls::trolls::laugh2: :fu::trolls:

Thanks, Justin wants to add a couple too.

:sorcerer::sorcerer::sorcerer::dance::dance::neptu ne:


Now off to school he goes, daycare first then school.

He says thank Jim for adding his smilies.. -Tyr

Drummond
10-29-2014, 08:25 AM
Thanks, Justin wants to add a couple too.

:sorcerer::sorcerer::sorcerer::dance::dance::neptu ne:


Now off to school he goes, daycare first then school.

He says thank Jim for adding his smilies.. -Tyr

Thank Justin for me, Tyr, for raising the quality of this thread !!

fj1200
10-29-2014, 10:16 AM
Only an idiot like you complains about hijacking and trolling and then goes on to make the posts that you do. But thank you for pointing out my grammatical error. I had started with idiot but changed it to moron for continuity sake and didn't make the appropriate correction. But awesome grammar nazi impersonation; good on ya. But let's see what idiocy you've made in denying conservatism and personifying hypocrisy; appropriate corrections for truth included. :)


STILL hijacking, I AM ... a committed troll ...

... small Government isn't the answer to every political problem out there. On occasions, an alternative must be employed.

... your claim that you don't attack Conservatives is arguably your most blatant lie of them all. You seemingly never STOP doing so.

... your anti-impeachment line.

But then, for someone who 'sucks', you do defend that character when the chips are really down.

I note your need to quote from a non-Western source to criticise UN human rights standards. This in answer to the torture issue ?

And consider this: terrorists do their own torturing. You seem to have overlooked that in your ongoing zeal to identify with them.

So when Lady Thatcher rejected complicity with torture - and that, note, ON LAW AND ORDER GROUNDS - could it also be said that she was, in no small measure, being anti-terrorist when taking that line ?


Yes, you've hijacked and continue to troll by rehashing all of your ignorant claims...
I've rarely see you argue FOR small government and scores of posts arguing FOR big government. But that's why I identified you as a hack many moon ago. :)
I "attack" idiots, some of whom claim to be conservative when are actually "conservative."
Kathianne holds the same view that it would be a bad political decision to pursue impeachment now. Is she a leftie?
Saying BO sucks is defending him? Man you dumb.

And in regards to the torture bit. Do you not know Margaret Thatcher's own words (http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108322)? Because that is laughable coming from someone who claims to be a "Thatcherite." You don't even know what that means :laugh: But I'm sure you'll continue to lie like the hypocritical moron that you are and claim that I'm "identifying" with terrorists and "defending" them and all that rot but the truth is that you are an idiot of the highest order and no friend to conservatism ANYWHERE. You know nothing of truth.

If you are the last line of defense for conservatism across the pond then conservatives are surely screwed over there because you don't know the first thing about it.

fj1200
10-29-2014, 12:58 PM
...small Government isn't the answer to every political problem out there. On occasions, an alternative must be employed.

Do tell. Conservatives everywhere are listening.

Drummond
10-29-2014, 01:17 PM
Only an idiot like you complains about hijacking and trolling and then goes on to make the posts that you do.

... h'm.

You know what ? You may actually have something of a point. I really MUST be an idiot, for giving your trolling the time of day.

After all, yet AGAIN, you're indulging in thread hijacking. Not one word in your latest post about Ebola. AGAIN.


But thank you for pointing out my grammatical error.

You're most welcome.


I had started with idiot but changed it to moron for continuity sake and didn't make the appropriate correction.

.... proving WHO to be the real idiot ?


I've rarely see you argue FOR small government and scores of posts arguing FOR big government.

As this thread proves, I've argued for pragmatism and its place in Conservative Government, showing you in the process how willing Margaret was to employ such methods. As a result, some of her methods were Big Government in nature.

You avoid the obvious truth this leads to ... because you just prefer to launch your trolling attacks here, instead.


I "attack" idiots, some of whom claim to be conservative when are actually "conservative."

If you're being consistent, your attacks should therefore be aimed at Margaret Thatcher, since I've shown you the extent of her own culpability, in 'Big Government' terms. But then, Margaret fails to be any form of target capable of reacting to your trolling rot ... eh, FJ ?

And you do love to have an actual audience ... to attack .....


Saying BO sucks is defending him?

You say what it suits you to say at any one moment. Consistency is NOT your strong point.

Another of your 'sucks' statements has been to say 'austerity sucks'. Now, on the thread(s) where you said that, you were going all-out to attack Conservatives in the UK who dared to apply a highly successful remedy to our financial ills, which YOU strongly disapproved of.

Why ? Because you're a CONSERVATIVE, supporting CONSERVATIVES .... ? Hardly, FJ.


And in regards to the torture bit. Do you not know Margaret Thatcher's own words (http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108322)? Because that is laughable coming from someone who claims to be a "Thatcherite."

...ahem !!! I can say EXACTLY that, to YOU.

I've looked at your link .... which, of course, predates 9/11 and everything following by a great margin. So, tell me ... where does terrorism get a mention .. AT ALL ??

As for 'torture' ... here's what your link says:


Recently, especially in Asia, some governments have urged that the standards of Human Rights laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights attached to the UN Charter, are Western and therefore not suitable for Asia and parts of the Third World whose cultures and circumstances are different. But the dispositions of human nature are the same everywhere—the affection of mother for child, the wish to do better for the family, the desire of the child to please, the recognition of courage and heroism, and the suffering and torture are felt the same by all human beings. Further, I have no difficulty in accepting the view that human nature is naturally endowed with a moral sense and a disposition (albeit if sometimes fragile) to make moral judgements. It's not only Western man who is created in God's image.

.... which is what YOU added in post #82, of course. But naturally, you omitted to place this within its NON terrorist context.

The date of this speech from Margaret ? 20th September, 1993 ... and what has the world seen, since ?

Something which MARGARET WOULD HAVE HAD NO MODERN-DAY EXPERIENCE OF.

I'm tired of answering your troll rubbish, so I'll conclude quickly. I cannot claim, nor do I, that you have any actual, REAL understanding of terrorists. Naturally not, since you - as your pal Jimmy C would do, at every opportunity - would argue that they are 'HUMAN BEINGS', deserving of HUMAN RIGHTS.

Now, what LEFTIE would disagree with that, FJ ?

After all - YOU don't .....

No, you just defend them in that way. You have, on multiple threads. It's The Leftie Thing To Do, after all .....

Drummond
10-29-2014, 01:37 PM
Do tell. Conservatives everywhere are listening.

Those Conservatives need only examine Margaret Thatcher's record, and make their own judgments from such a review. Then reflect on how very successful a CONSERVATIVE she was.

They may then reflect on your inexplicable position, both supportive, yet also simultaneously dismissive, of her achievements ... rather as a Leftie would be, if said Leftie had presented bogus bona fides to a discussion forum ...

fj1200
10-29-2014, 01:45 PM
... h'm.

You know what ? You may actually have something of a point. I really MUST be an idiot, for giving your trolling the time of day.

After all, yet AGAIN, you're indulging in thread hijacking. Not one word in your latest post about Ebola. AGAIN.

It's a start anyway. And you made this thread about your imagination loooooooooooonnnnnnnggggg ago. :slap:


You're most welcome.

.... proving WHO to be the real idiot ?

The hypocritical grammar nazi of course.


As this thread proves, I've argued for pragmatism and its place in Conservative Government, showing you in the process how willing Margaret was to employ such methods. As a result, some of her methods were Big Government in nature.

You avoid the obvious truth this leads to ... because you just prefer to launch your trolling attacks here, instead.

There's pragmatism and there's conservatism. Pragmatism is not conservatism. And there is of course you defending Big Government. Repeatedly.


If you're being consistent, your attacks should therefore be aimed at Margaret Thatcher, since I've shown you the extent of her own culpability, in 'Big Government' terms. But then, Margaret fails to be any form of target capable of reacting to your trolling rot ... eh, FJ ?

And you do love to have an actual audience ... to attack .....

A. She's not with us anymore, and 2. She has not proven herself to be an idiot as have you. Of course she would also not be seeing through your imagination.


You say what it suits you to say at any one moment. Consistency is NOT your strong point.

:laugh: I say it all the time. :laugh:


...ahem !!! I can say EXACTLY that, to YOU.

I've looked at your link .... which, of course, predates 9/11 and everything following by a great margin. So, tell me ... where does terrorism get a mention .. AT ALL ??

As for 'torture' ... here's what your link says:

We can all agree that terrorism is bad m'kay which leaves the response to terrorists which you can only respond with is torture. And since you were utterly unaware of what Mags says about it that leaves your "Thatcherite" status as questionable.


.... which is what YOU added in post #82, of course. But naturally, you omitted to place this within its NON terrorist context.

The date of this speech from Margaret ? 20th September, 1993 ... and what has the world seen, since ?

Something which MARGARET WOULD HAVE HAD NO MODERN-DAY EXPERIENCE OF.

I'm tired of answering your troll rubbish, so I'll conclude quickly. I cannot claim, nor do I, that you have any actual, REAL understanding of terrorists. Naturally not, since you - as your pal Jimmy C would do, at every opportunity - would argue that they are 'HUMAN BEINGS', deserving of HUMAN RIGHTS.

Now, what LEFTIE would disagree with that, FJ ?

After all - YOU don't .....

No, you just defend them in that way. You have, on multiple threads. It's The Leftie Thing To Do, after all .....

Which of course leaves your response above which can only be translated that you think Margaret Thatcher is malleable. You can't say that she had no experience with terror responses because you've already pointed out her IRA decisions so what is left? What is left is you disagreeing with Mags' very words. Mags and Jimmy C. together on the leftie front. :laugh:

It sucks to be you debate toy. :)

fj1200
10-29-2014, 01:48 PM
Those Conservatives need only examine Margaret Thatcher's record, and make their own judgments from such a review. Then reflect on how very successful a CONSERVATIVE she was.

Do it hack. Defend it; Big Government is better than Small Government. Don't run away. 'Proudly Thatcherite' my A*!

Drummond
10-29-2014, 02:09 PM
I'll make this quick, because I'm weary of your trolling and thread hijacking. I've better things to do with my time than indulge your Leftie-driven ego.

Pragmatism, as Margaret proved, and as David Cameron acknowledged, can be a highly effective way of making Conservatism work to its utmost potential. They can enjoy a successful synergistic interlocking, to produce brilliant Governmental effects. History says so, despite anything you have to say on the matter.

-- But -- here, your true Leftie psychology betrays you. Doesn't it ?? What Leftie can come to terms with pragmatism being part of an integral, successful application, of a philosophy ?

You'll never get that. You can't. No Leftie could be content with that form of reality.

YOU were the one unaware of proper context from a speech of Margaret's. Saying what ... that all you know of her is what quick Google searches give you ?

When I referred to Margaret's lack of modern day experience of terrorism, I had in mind that her experience was defined by her knowledge of the IRA. NOT that of Islamic terrorism, since all of our modern experiences of it post-date her Leadership.

So you cannot look to anything she spoke about and say it correctly assesses today's terrorist problems. The world has seen a new order of terrorist savagery, to which it should appropriately respond.

Drummond
10-29-2014, 02:19 PM
Do it hack. Defend it; Big Government is better than Small Government. Don't run away. 'Proudly Thatcherite' my A*!

See ? You just can't face historical reality. It's beyond you.

I have covered your rot already. I have told you that a true Conservative does not prefer big Government solutions, since after all, the point is to NOT interfere with individual lives any more than is necessary. BUT ... history, and Margaret's successes, speak volumes. Whether you like it or not .... much of what she achieved had to involve a Big Government sort of approach.

Defy reality all you like, Mr Leftie - it's what Lefties are best at. Margaret's history, her record, what she was willing to do, and HOW she did it .. it's easily researchable. It's high time you did some proper research ! You can face the truth, or, you can cling on to a basis for your trolling rot which has you continuing to fight Conservatives here on a 'grounding' of self-delusion.

And just how stupid would such an exercise be, anyway ?

Have fun.

fj1200
10-30-2014, 03:18 PM
... making Conservatism work to its utmost potential. They can enjoy a successful synergistic interlocking, to produce brilliant Governmental effects.

YOU were the one unaware of proper context from a speech of Margaret's. Saying what ... that all you know of her is what quick Google searches give you ?

When I referred to Margaret's lack of modern day experience of terrorism, I had in mind that her experience was defined by her knowledge of the IRA. NOT that of Islamic terrorism, since all of our modern experiences of it post-date her Leadership.

So you cannot look to anything she spoke about and say it correctly assesses today's terrorist problems. The world has seen a new order of terrorist savagery, to which it should appropriately respond.

So what you're saying idiot is that small government is successful because Big Government? When you find yourself in a hole idiot you should stop digging.

So what you're saying idiot is that the Iron Lady would have forsaken her core beliefs when confronted with something that she had already been confronted with. Yeah, it sounds stupid when you say it too. I also find it incredible idiot that I had to point out that it was Mags who had said it; Any real "Thatcherite" would/should have known from the get go. You're welcome.

And I'm pretty sure that we can appropriately respond to terror without resorting to doing what terrorists do. I'm sure the Lady Thatcher and I agree on that. :)


I have covered your rot already. I have told you that a true Conservative does not prefer big Government solutions, since after all, the point is to NOT interfere with individual lives any more than is necessary. BUT ... history, and Margaret's successes, speak volumes. Whether you like it or not .... much of what she achieved had to involve a Big Government sort of approach.

:facepalm99:

Here's the thing idiot. You saying idiotic things really isn't proof of anything since you've now been on record of praising big government solutions over small government solutions. I'm pretty sure you don't even know what actual conservatism is since you seem so quick to jump on big government solutions when the going gets tough for you. Small government conservatism is a courageous choice and you're nothing but a coward latching on to a big government solution.