NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush is giving the nation's highest civilian award to three foreign leaders who have been among his most loyal partners on the world stage, particularly in the Iraq war

Anyone want to know the defintion of irony?

good lap dogie, daddy give you biscuit.

Well, since Howard left, Australia has had it's Internet censored and curfews put in place. So he probably deserves it, comparatively.

Well, since Howard left, Australia has had it's Internet censored and curfews put in place. So he probably deserves it, comparatively.

Well, Australia voted in Rudd, so they supported internet censorship & curfews.

lets see; preditory governments that regeme chainge democratically ellected prey for not rolling over for them, awarding medals of freedom. uh-huh. "interesting" deffinician of freedom certainly. at the very least.

It's beyond satire in many ways......
The award citation described Blair as "a powerful force for freedom and for building understanding between nations".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/14/tony-blair-george-bush

Well, since Howard left, Australia has had it's Internet censored and curfews put in place. So he probably deserves it, comparatively.

Yeah, fuck this. I'm going to Cuba

Well, Australia voted in Rudd, so they supported internet censorship & curfews.

Yeah, that right, he just SHOUTED OUT those ideas during the campaign. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that right, he just SHOUTED OUT those ideas during the campaign. :rolleyes:

Hey look, you could see those sort of things coming; left-wing governments always love to destroy freedom of speech (like in New Zealand with the Electoral Finance Act, and the proposal for Hate Speech Laws).

Hey look, you could see those sort of things coming; left-wing governments always love to destroy freedom of speech (like in New Zealand with the Electoral Finance Act, and the proposal for Hate Speech Laws).

The right wing are just as equally bad when it comes to censorship usually. The only difference is what they like to ban.

Well, since Howard left, Australia has had it's Internet censored and curfews put in place. So he probably deserves it, comparatively.

That logic debars Blair immediately, anathema of civil rights that the rev. smiler was. Tosser.

That logic debars Blair immediately, anathema of civil rights that the rev. smiler was. Tosser.
I don't know...

He did give the Iraqis freedom to get blown up by our soldiers and allowed all those nice insurgent-types the freedom to do what they like in Iraq.

I don't know...

He did give the Iraqis freedom to get blown up by our soldiers and allowed all those nice insurgent-types the freedom to do what they like in Iraq.

True. Quite generous of him, all things considered.

Realistically, his disregard for, and removal of, basic civil rights, has been startling, as has its acceptance by the tabloid reading demographic.

Realistically, his disregard for, and removal of, basic civil rights, has been startling, as has its acceptance by the tabloid reading demographic.
Those who read tabloids to get factual information from them rather than for a laugh or to induce a heart-attack will tend to believe anything the Murdoch media tells them, in between claiming benefits and screaming about how the government has done nothing for them.

It is frightening how wide the apathy towards some of what this "Labour" government has done. There is a willingness to accept the whole "We're just doing to protect you from terrorists!" argument, which I think is very, very weak and nicely slippery-slopey. If the people don't believe the lies they've been fed, they just don't give a shit and think that the trend that will continue from this won't affect them in the slightest.

I'll be damned if Cameron won't carry on a lot of "Labour"'s policies on this front, but I think that that's beside the point for this thread.

Those who read tabloids to get factual information from them rather than for a laugh or to induce a heart-attack will tend to believe anything the Murdoch media tells them, in between claiming benefits and screaming about how the government has done nothing for them.

It is frightening how wide the apathy towards some of what this "Labour" government has done. There is a willingness to accept the whole "We're just doing to protect you from terrorists!" argument, which I think is very, very weak and nicely slippery-slopey. If the people don't believe the lies they've been fed, they just don't give a shit and think that the trend that will continue from this won't affect them in the slightest.

I'll be damned if Cameron won't carry on a lot of "Labour"'s policies on this front, but I think that that's beside the point for this thread.

I'd be surprised of Cameron actually continued the authoratarian trend Labur have presided over; he was mildly supportive of David Davis' stance last year, and would lose the support of the Tory right, and its' electoral support, if he did so. However, the chances of his repealing Labour's provisions are equally unlikely.

I'd be surprised of Cameron actually continued the authoratarian trend Labur have presided over; he was mildly supportive of David Davis' stance last year, and would lose the support of the Tory right, and its' electoral support, if he did so. However, the chances of his repealing Labour's provisions are equally unlikely.
That's true.

I must admit, if David Davis was being honest when he took his stance, then I'm very much in favour of him. However, my cynical-sense kicked in and led me to believe that he was just doing it to get more publicity for himself. Whether that's true or is my scepticism of anything right-wing for no real reason is another matter, really. Probably a personal failing on my part :p

This current government's actions on "national security" won't be repealed by the next or subsequent governments - it allowed them to have a dig at the government whilst in opposition but this is exactly what a lot of governments would have loved to do, giving themselves a more secure grip on power.

Well, I'm beginning to sound like a crazy-person.

That's true.

I must admit, if David Davis was being honest when he took his stance, then I'm very much in favour of him. However, my cynical-sense kicked in and led me to believe that he was just doing it to get more publicity for himself. Whether that's true or is my scepticism of anything right-wing for no real reason is another matter, really. Probably a personal failing on my part :p

This current government's actions on "national security" won't be repealed by the next or subsequent governments - it allowed them to have a dig at the government whilst in opposition but this is exactly what a lot of governments would have loved to do, giving themselves a more secure grip on power.

Well, I'm beginning to sound like a crazy-person.

Incorrigible Tory that I am, I suspect Davis was being sincere; only genuine conviction could explain why the shadow Home Secretary of a party likely to be in government within two years would choose to return to the backbenches.

The withdrawal of civil rights does piss me off more than anything else Labour have done; their economic, social and educational policies have redounded to the disadvantage of the ill-informed middle ground that fell for Blair, but their attack on civil rights will be felt only by a very different social group.

Hey look, you could see those sort of things coming; left-wing governments always love to destroy freedom of speech (like in New Zealand with the Electoral Finance Act, and the proposal for Hate Speech Laws).

Proposed Hate Speech Laws? Where? I only see a National government in power which shafted workers within the first 90 days of power.

I'd be surprised of Cameron actually continued the authoratarian trend Labur have presided over; he was mildly supportive of David Davis' stance last year, and would lose the support of the Tory right, and its' electoral support, if he did so. However, the chances of his repealing Labour's provisions are equally unlikely.

Seems to be an unfortunate trend lately in Western Nations. Ironic really, that 30 years of IRA terrorism, and when another country is attacked they start making up rules to restrict freedom.

Seems to be an unfortunate trend lately in Western Nations. Ironic really, that 30 years of IRA terrorism, and when another country is attacked they start making up rules to restrict freedom.

I'd personally ascribe it, in the UK at any rate, to Blair's desire to use any policy, however flawed or dangerous, for immediate political currency with the masses.

I'd personally ascribe it, in the UK at any rate, to Blair's desire to use any policy, however flawed or dangerous, for immediate political currency with the masses.

That really does apply to any "Democracy" with an <insert name here of person desperate to hold onto power> thing instead of Blair.

That really does apply to any "Democracy" with an <insert name here of person desperate to hold onto power> thing instead of Blair.

I'd still argue Blair changed the rules somewhat in the UK. An unprecedentedly demagoguic, ideologically agnostic politician, but point taken all the same.