NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Completely Off-Topic => Topic started by: Scotty on November 19, 2003, 12:22:10 pm
-
what a big farce!!!!
16,000 police force
500 secret service officers
Heavily armed car
and a reporter managed to sneak in through palace security and it could have been a "terrorist".
Can't wait to watch Graham Norton to hear BUSH get slagged rotten!
-
I was gonna post a thread on this too! Why should we spend 5 MILLION on someone the majority of people here hate? Fair enough have him here with Blair, but not a STATE visit- thats an insult.
-
I was gonna post a thread on this too! Why should we spend 5 MILLION on someone the majority of people here hate? Fair enough have him here with Blair, but not a STATE visit- thats an insult.
exactly £5 million of tax payers money for a cup of tea and a chit chat... :(
-
Amazing that you people blame Bush for this... HE didin't do a damn thing... you lost £5 million of tax payers money because of PROTESTERS. Bush's visit could have been completely uneventful. You two have a seriously skewed view of this entire thing...
-
world leaders meet with eachother... thats how it goes...
i agree with Jason.. its not Bush's fault, its the fault of the people who dont want him there.
-
Amazing that you people blame Bush for this... HE didin't do a damn thing... you lost £5 million of tax payers money because of PROTESTERS. Bush's visit could have been completely uneventful. You two have a seriously skewed view of this entire thing...
$11 million (£ 5 million)
The cost of hiring extra police officers to provide security for Bush’s visit was paid for using tax payers money nothing to do with the protesters.
-
£5 million isn't all that much considering that burning tax payer's hard earned money is what Britain does best. The NHS could probably squander that in a couple of minutes. It's not Bush's fault, it's just the way we do things here (expensively and ineffectively, lol).
-Kev
-
world leaders meet with eachother... thats how it goes...
i agree with Jason.. its not Bush's fault, its the fault of the people who dont want him there.
Holly, ever stop to think why we didn't want him here? I thought that was obvious.
And Jason, i think you'll find that it is your view that is skewed. The figures were misrepresented in the American media as you stated on your LJ- even the police here admitted it was 100,000 that protested, not 50,000. You have NO idea whatsoever what it is like to live in a country with a royal family- which in turn means you will have NO idea whatsoever what an insult it is to our nation to have a figure such as the Queen invite one of the most hated men in the world to our country.
-
world leaders meet with eachother... thats how it goes...
i agree with Jason.. its not Bush's fault, its the fault of the people who dont want him there.
Holly, ever stop to think why we didn't want him here? I thought that was obvious.
Rosie, ever stop to think that maybe the only way to make things better between our countries is to talk and work things out, isnt that obvious? i dont know about you, but i do want a more peaceful world. i know thats not going to happen... but little things like the leaders of 2 countries talking is a step. thats the way things are done... people meet and talk about issues that affect relationships and what is going on around them! if no one talked... that would suck! it would be a very bitter world and dont you think that maybe the Queen knows what she's doing?
and if there were no protesters Bush wouldnt need security at all! but is because of people like that that it happens... blame them!
-
Rosie, ever stop to think that maybe the only way to make things better between our countries is to talk and work things out, isnt that obvious? i dont know about you, but i do want a more peaceful world.
What is evident to me is that all Bush has done by coming here is making things worse. You place steel tarrifs on our country when we just sent our forces in Iraq, and you want us to talk about it? Oh and, correct me if i'm wrong, but Bush didn't exactly want to 'talk about it' when it came to the war did he? The reason the Second Resolution was pushed was because of Blair. Bush would've gone in a long time before.
dont you think that maybe the Queen knows what she's doing?
No. I do not like the Queen- i saw her just 2 days ago when she came to my town. She has no idea what she is doing in my opinion- she is a frail, lost, ageing woman. I respect what the Queen stands for, not the person.
and if there were no protesters Bush wouldnt need security at all! but is because of people like that that it happens... blame them!
Catergorically NOT true. Correct me if i'm wrong again, but Bush is fighting a war on Terrorism. Not protesters.
-
Amazing that you people blame Bush for this... HE didin't do a damn thing... you lost £5 million of tax payers money because of PROTESTERS. Bush's visit could have been completely uneventful. You two have a seriously skewed view of this entire thing...
but its fun to hate Bush :lol:
-
Woah.. with ALL that is going on in the world.. if you guiys think there need to be talk between the US and Britain to "Improve Things" maybe you should look around for some real enemies. Umm in case you havent notised there are Muslim Extremists that hate us both and would like to see us all dead... adn no it's NOT all the US's fault as much as the Brits would like to pass off the blame. You were doing fine with pissing off the Muslims too long before the whole Iraq situation came up...
You place steel tarrifs on our country when we just sent our forces in Iraq, and you want us to talk about it? Oh and, correct me if i'm wrong, but Bush didn't exactly want to 'talk about it' when it came to the war did he? The reason the Second Resolution was pushed was because of Blair. Bush would've gone in a long time before.
I will say Bush's steel tariffs were an insane rediculous idea that I have no idea where he ever got the idea he was doing good there. I have no idea how his advisors let those get snuck in and I have no idea how they are being allowed to stay. He will be solely responsible for the destruction of the World economy if someone doesn't take care of them soon. THIS is an issue where he severly fucked up.
Catergorically NOT true. Correct me if i'm wrong again, but Bush is fighting a war on Terrorism. Not protesters.
I could not understand this statement no matter how hard I tried. I don't know how much clearer it can be. Extra security was hired because there were going to be 100's of thousands of protesters. So the people to blame for the extra money being spent are the protesters. The President of the United States of America has quite Enough Security thank you very much. They are called the Secret Service and are fully capapble of protecting one man. If the whiney protesters would have quit their yapping and put down their banners with oh so catchy slogans on them.. you're £5 million could have been saved. Why is it that Bush had to stay home? why is it that none of you ask that the whiners stay home?
And the amusing thing is... none of us, would ever insult your Prime Minister by implying he should stay home and not visit the United States. It's really is laughable that it is the "anti-war" crowd that get hostile, hateful and just plain rude and insulting so quickly...
-
If the whiney protesters would have quit their yapping and put down their banners with oh so catchy slogans on them.. you're £5 million could have been saved. Why is it that Bush had to stay home? why is it that none of you ask that the whiners stay home?
Did you just ask protestors to stay home? Oh Jason, you just went against your little country's principle of 'freedom of speech'.
And the amusing thing is... none of us, would ever insult your Prime Minister by implying he should stay home and not visit the United States. It's really is laughable that it is the "anti-war" crowd that get hostile, hateful and just plain rude and insulting so quickly...
Would anyone protest against Blair if he went to America? I think not.
-
Did you just ask protestors to stay home? Oh Jason, you just went against your little country's principle of 'freedom of speech'.
How is this true? This is freedom of assembly we are talking about right here, not speech. And anyway, the goverment did not prohibit it.
And there is a little something called responsibility here. There are lots of things that it is legal to say and do that I would discourage because they are irresponsible. But by no means do I think that they should be illegal. The people have the right to do these things. I have the right to say that their actions were irresponsible and they shouldn't have done it. But I'm all for their right to make idiots out of themselves.
This is not a civil rights issue. Don't try to make it one. Just because we think they didn't exercise responsibility in exercising their rights doesn't mean we don't think they have the right to do what they did.
-
And the amusing thing is... none of us, would ever insult your Prime Minister by implying he should stay home and not visit the United States.
It was a state visit. The Prime Minister isn't head of state in the UK. The Queen is. Obviously, if the Queen of England visited the US it would have no political connotations, so this is a whole different issue.
-
It was a state visit. The Prime Minister isn't head of state in the UK. The Queen is. Obviously, if the Queen of England visited the US it would have no political connotations, so this is a whole different issue.
The difference is in semantics and has no real significance. As far as I can tell, the Queen has no real power. While the Queen is officially the head of state, the Prime Minister is the de facto head of state.
And if you want to get picky about the "state visit" thing, the Bush visit was not a state visit. That is because the US does not technically have a head of state. The president is not more powerful than Congress or the courts. Both can remove him if they wish. The powers of state are vested equally in all three branches of the government.
But of course, we don't want to get picky here. Let's talk reality. A visit by Blair would be considered a "state visit," just like you consider the Bush visit one.
-
But of course, we don't want to get picky here. Let's talk reality. A visit by Blair would be considered a "state visit," just like you consider the Bush visit one.
Er picky? No, we are not being picky, we're speaking properly. I can tell you it's not the same when the King and Queen of Spain visit Paris and have dinner with Jacques Chirac and when Jose Maria Aznar visits Chirac. Not the same by far. While the King and Queen visiting would be a symbolic bonding visit, the Aznar visit would probably be used to discuss more important political issues which would have some actual repercussion, unlike the King's visit.
-
Er picky? No, we are not being picky, we're speaking properly.
I know Rosie said that the Bush visit was a state visit, not you. Still, if you insist on being entirely accurate, admit then that the Bush visit was not a "state visit" because Bush is not head of state. He is merely the head of the executive branch. Maybe he is the de facto head of state... but you insist on "speaking properly."
-
]and if there were no protesters Bush wouldnt need security at all! but is because of people like that that it happens... blame them!
Catergorically NOT true. Correct me if i'm wrong again, but Bush is fighting a war on Terrorism. Not protesters.
Ok, yes, you're right, but what does that have to do with what i said? Yes, he's trying to get rid of terrorism, because its a horrible thing! Some people dont agree with what he's doing (which they have every right too), but some people are crazy enough to try to hurt him or kill him. They are the reason he is being protected! I really doubt the protection is there for no good reason! Look what happened in the US 40 years ago... our former president was shot and killed because he didn't have proper protection. People are crazy and protection is needed because of them! Therfore we can't let powerful people, with so many people that don't agree with them, walk around like a normal person on the street.
-
i'd just like to pipe in with my little two cents- i think it's really easy to blame the war on terrorism on solely Bush, as i have seen done in this thread, but lest we forget that congress also has a role in passing the war with iraq.
so it wasn't just Bush's idea...and it's easy to make him a scapegoat for something for which he did not have 100 percent say in.
and that doesn't mean that i agree with the war (i don't) or that i disagree with the war because of the political aspects of it. i just feel war is wrong. i don't care who is fighting who for what reason.
kelllllleyyy
-
]and if there were no protesters Bush wouldnt need security at all! but is because of people like that that it happens... blame them!
Catergorically NOT true. Correct me if i'm wrong again, but Bush is fighting a war on Terrorism. Not protesters.
Ok, yes, you're right, but what does that have to do with what i said? Yes, he's trying to get rid of terrorism, because its a horrible thing! Some people dont agree with what he's doing (which they have every right too), but some people are crazy enough to try to hurt him or kill him. They are the reason he is being protected! I really doubt the protection is there for no good reason! Look what happened in the US 60 years ago... our former president was shot and killed because he didn't have proper protection. People are crazy and protection is needed because of them! Therfore we can't let powerful people, with so many people that don't agree with them, walk around like a normal person on the street.
Holly, it has everything to do with what you said. One of the main reasons for such a large amount of security is because of the terrorist threat and not the protestors. And please, stop calling protestors 'crazy people' just because you don't agree with their position.
-
And there is a little something called responsibility here. There are lots of things that it is legal to say and do that I would discourage because they are irresponsible. But by no means do I think that they should be illegal. The people have the right to do these things. I have the right to say that their actions were irresponsible and they shouldn't have done it. But I'm all for their right to make idiots out of themselves.
I really fail to see your point here. Why is protesting irresponsible? I in no way see how it could be. Is expressing your opinion irresponsible? Is having a social conscience irresponsible?
It was a state visit. The Prime Minister isn't head of state in the UK. The Queen is. Obviously, if the Queen of England visited the US it would have no political connotations, so this is a whole different issue.
The difference is in semantics and has no real significance. As far as I can tell, the Queen has no real power. While the Queen is officially the head of state, the Prime Minister is the de facto head of state.
You are wrong. It was only a few days ago that you admitted to me you had little or no idea about the power the Queen holds in this country or indeed our whole political system- don't argue in ignorance. It was a state visit because the Queen invited him- not because Bush is 'Head of State'. It makes a great deal of difference to the purpose and public feeling here, a difference you admitted to have no knowledge of.
-
Let's give it up for free speech :blueblob: How wonderful it is that even with two sides to this argument we are free to have opinions and discuss them 8)
-
And please, stop calling protestors 'crazy people' just because you don't agree with their position.
ok... ummm... when did i call the protesters "crazy people"?
i even said they have the right to disagree with what he does. But the crazy people are the people who hurt or kill people. That's what I said!
-
And please, stop calling protestors 'crazy people' just because you don't agree with their position.
ok... ummm... when did i call the protesters "crazy people"?
i even said they have the right to disagree with what he does. But the crazy people are the people who hurt or kill people. That's what I said!
Okay, fair play. You said that the reason extra money was spent was because of the protesters posing a security threat. You then say that the protesters don't pose a security threat but 'crazy people' do. Who are these crazy people? Since you initially blamed it on the protesters, you are implying that they include people who want to hurt or kill people. What is your point here? I don't agree. I think those people are terrorists.
-
i think some protestors would like to harm bush...
Though I don't think holly is trying to say all protestors would like to harm him...personally I wouldn't harm the man, I just feel that he isn't the brightest bulb on the chain of christmas lights.
-
i think some protestors would like to harm bush...
Though I don't think holly is trying to say all protestors would like to harm him...personally I wouldn't harm the man, I just feel that he isn't the brightest bulb on the chain of christmas lights.
Chum, i'm not implying that she thinks all the protesters would like to harm Bush. Or would seriously think about it. What i'm saying is that she is unclear of who exactly is a threat to Bush- and if groups of protesters do contain 'crazy people'.
-
And please, stop calling protestors 'crazy people' just because you don't agree with their position.
ok... ummm... when did i call the protesters "crazy people"?
i even said they have the right to disagree with what he does. But the crazy people are the people who hurt or kill people. That's what I said!
Okay, fair play. You said that the reason extra money was spent was because of the protesters posing a security threat. You then say that the protesters don't pose a security threat but 'crazy people' do. Who are these crazy people? Since you initially blamed it on the protesters, you are implying that they include people who want to hurt or kill people. What is your point here? I don't agree. I think those people are terrorists.
omg... I said that the crazy people are the people who hurt and kill people without good reason. I think thats crazy and wrong... but I guess you dont agree. Ok... and yeah, they're terrorist, I never said they weren't! What is your point? In some groups of protestors there are some terrorists who would want to hurt Bush. Thats why he needs security. That's what I've been saying.
-
i think some protestors would like to harm bush...
Though I don't think holly is trying to say all protestors would like to harm him...personally I wouldn't harm the man, I just feel that he isn't the brightest bulb on the chain of christmas lights.
Chum, i'm not implying that she thinks all the protesters would like to harm Bush. Or would seriously think about it. What i'm saying is that she is unclear of who exactly is a threat to Bush- and if groups of protesters do contain 'crazy people'.
Oh, I'm unclear on who would be a threat to Bush? I thought people who would want to hurt him are a threat... That's what I was saying. So they're not a threat then? *confused*
-
I really fail to see your point here. Why is protesting irresponsible? I in no way see how it could be. Is expressing your opinion irresponsible? Is having a social conscience irresponsible?
If there weren't all those protestors, all those police would not be necessary. Many fewer police could be used. I don't know if you were a protester or not, but if you were, you would have no right to complain about the 5 million pounds spent on security.
And a social conscience? All that Bush bashing in Europe getting to you? Yeah, Bush isn't perfect. But somehow, most of the evil dictators of the world get a better rep in Europe than Bush and he's a fraction of their evil.
I digress. Arguing about whether or not Bush is good or bad with you is pointless. Let me just state that protesting like what happened in Europe never changed anything. It needlessly consumes police resources and impedes traffic. And let me say that such a demonstration by English people means absolutely nothing to the President of the US. He isn't elected by them. And as to whether or not it's sending a message to Blair et al? I think they already know very well that their policies are not supported by many of their countrymen.
You are wrong. It was only a few days ago that you admitted to me you had little or no idea about the power the Queen holds in this country or indeed our whole political system- don't argue in ignorance. It was a state visit because the Queen invited him- not because Bush is 'Head of State'. It makes a great deal of difference to the purpose and public feeling here, a difference you admitted to have no knowledge of.
Ok. The term "state visit" is never used over here. I was arguing for an incorrect definition based on limited information. Arguing in ignorance? Maybe on the term "state visit." On your goverment in general? I beg to differ.
I read up on things and I learn fast. My problem a few days ago was that what you were telling me was different from what I saw in practice and what I had read before in the news. While I may have confessed ignorance on the subject, that was because many of the things that I had read before contradicted what you had said. Further reading reconciled these differences. They were mainly more about tradition vs. actual practice. There are lots of things in your goverment that work one way in theory, but in actual practice, they operate differently.
I will try not to get any more off topic on this thread, so let's get back to the main point in that last paragraph you wrote. Why would a state visit make such a big difference? Why would it be an insult? Is a state visit a way of saying "Good dog! We approve of what you are doing!"? Nah... it's all diplomacy. What's wrong with that? Or maybe this whole thing has some ceremonial value that I don't understand. If so, it's a rather silly one. Powerful people meet. Often. Courtesy is granted, regardless of whether it's warranted or not.
As they say, diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip. Treating someone well is one of many methods used in combination to smooth out the trip.
Sorry... I'm on a public workstation. I have to go now. :-\