vortexring

How could you tell, unless they made themselves known to you? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

FUBAR 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Pluck yew!!! You be solly! 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

That's pretty much what the newspaper called 'The Times' has been saying over here today! http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4439045.ece 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Yeah, but then you'd have to execute the. . . sorry. I'll get me coat. . . Still, Ash wood's good if you can find it. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Yeah, I like his work. That poem was springing to a lot of minds after 9/11. The Unocal project. It's failure should have taught a lot of lessons. And apparantly a certain one did! Oil companies cannot build pipelines which are vulnerable to civil wars, political changes, instability and an environment covered with Islamic fundamentalism, drugs and guns. . . so I couldn't agree with you more. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Great answer - I liked: 'intelligence assets to prevent their networks from proliferating and to weed them when they try'. Sounds like it might be beginning to happen; Pakistan officially admitted to having a crooked ISI. As if nobody knew! Still, regarding Islamic fanaticism withering away. That might take forever, despite ever increasing numbers turning their backs on it. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I didn't write it! That's a given! Still, didn't the Armageddon-ometer say anything? How come? Wouldn't now be a better time, instead of a short time? Any links to the matter of 'not IF, but when'? Well, their recent wars were deeply unpopular. I think most Americans know this too. How long!? What does the armageddon-ometer reckon?

Er. I get it now....! Blimey, what can I say? That I've been an utter mong? I genuinely thought you were being deliberately belligerent. So I guess I owe you an apology then. 2 really; 1 for being such a fool, and the other for being unnecessarily rude. Sorry Jakee. Guess I owe you a few beers now. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

I'd say such a statement would imply you are more shaped from your father than mother! Why would you make such a statement if it wasn't so? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

It's simple really. Jakee said Obama is right by saying ''Our founding institutions were profoundly shaped by the English tradition', and explains he is right because a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing. My point is that English tradition could be viewed as a single 'thing'. Which would therefore make the statement flawed. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Sure, and there was a crazy face at the end of the statement, indicating the nonsensical element of it: 'Back to the point. If he was in actual fact right in what he said as you claim, by using your logic he'd therefore be fucking wrong. And that's what this is about. Jakee's statement: 'He is right. Because (and here's a radical concept for you) a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing. Crazy!' I find that to be flawed. I replied: 'Crazy is certainly the right word here. If he's right by saying 'English tradition' rather than 'Scottish Enlightenment', as you claim, surely your claim is in actual fact wrong: Jakee: 'Because (and here's a radical concept for you) a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing.' To say he is right, contradicts with his explanation why he is right. If a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing, which of course it can, Jakee must also be wrong by saying 'he is right.' 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Why? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

No, Mr2mk1g missed the main point, which is why I pointed out post 38 and 39 to him. So, seeing as you quoted post 38, please feel free to explain why my logic in regards to Jakee's original statement isn't valid. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Well, feel free to explain why. My reasoning is that Jakee's original reply is fundamentally flawed, which has always been what this thread is really about. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

See post 38 & 39. That's where the main point lies. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Further to that, it's quite obvious and rather cunning how you've tried to distance your replies from this particular area. I don't have any issues with what you're saying in regards to a group of people possibly being influenced by others. As I've already mentioned: "Not relative to post#1. Whilst your statement about a group of people being influenced by others isn't wrong, by saying he was right makes your statement. . . . wrong." And not once in your replies did you address this point! Despite recognising the points you're continually repeating, as I've now shown, it seems your tactic has been to further your argument along this pointless line to avoid admitting your original statement was in fact wrong. I reckon that's a fair and clear enough summary of my reasoning. I look forward to reading your examples of clouding the issue further, whilst continually avoiding the main point. And I expect it'll consist of further questioning of an area where I've earlier provided an adequate answer to. ...an adequate answer to...there you go! You can pick up on this statement, again to avoid the main point. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

My demand for evidence from your assertions was a tactic Jakee commonly uses, rather than discussing the subject. I was curious to see how he'd pick up on it. I figured he'd be like this in his reaction: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v715/rayskwire/Random/Too_Much_Computer.gif I've seen that animation several times now and I'm still laughing. So maybe I am weird. Anyway, are you going to provide evidence or what!? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

No, not really. Trans-fats have no nutritional value and are bad for you. So get rid of them. Look at obesity in the Western world. Why is it most commonly found amongst the poorer people? Is it because poor people are simply stupid and greedy? Or is it because they can generally only afford cheap & crap fatty foods? Sure, people in a perfect world would be aware of everything they're eating. And in a perfect world you wouldn't have trans-fats. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

When were you over there mate? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

But what about heart disease? Can you look in a mirror and see your arteries? It isn't simply about trans fats turning you into fat bastard. It's more about heart disease. How many people die prematurely from heart disease? How many of these people were fully aware of all the items they were eating that contained trans fats? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Here you go: Interesting. If you knew I was going to pick up on the hypocrisy then you realise that you're doing it, which puts you above Rush at least. I'm impressed. I knew that you wouldn't just pick up on it, you'd literally leap upon it. Like this: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v715/rayskwire/Random/Too_Much_Computer.gif Glad you're impressed. A snide comment at both myself and Rush. Well done. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

The reason I'm continually saying you're wrong is simple: I said Obama was wrong to say: 'Our founding institutions were profoundly shaped by the English tradition'. I then said: 'Which isn't quite right. They were profoundly shaped by the Scottish Enlightenment.' You then said: 'He is right. Because (and here's a radical concept for you) a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing. Crazy!' Happy so far? Happy that I haven't misquoted you, twisted any words you used or completely made up a statement you didn't in fact use? (Such tactics are pretty low - what kind of person would do such things, eh?) Back to the point. If he was in actual fact right in what he said as you claim, by using your logic he'd therefore be fucking wrong. From post#4: (Me)'If he's right by saying 'English tradition' rather than 'Scottish Enlightenment', as you claim, surely your claim is in actual fact wrong: (you)'Because (and here's a radical concept for you) a group of people can be influenced by more than one thing.' Therefore he cannot be right as you claim, and that's from using your logic. Now that's what this has been all about. As you well know. So you're still wrong. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Veiled threats? Not at all. We'll chat on Saturday. I'll be delighted if you're still so obstinate and disagreeable. But I don't think you will be. Will you? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Simple really. See post#1. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'