has Pattisons Drink Driving case split the dressing room?

[Houston Canary 0]

That was not Maude Flanders who said that, it was some woman who has been on maybe 2 or 3 episodes for a few seconds each, doing the same overly-emotional pleading, which is what the left base most of their decisions on, emotion rather than substance.  As for who the character is parodying, is is not the Christian right. It is parodying the bleeding hearts.  It''s a "nobody can do anything because someone MIGHT get offended" (or in that case, hurt) mentality.

And who lead the charge against music?  Tipper Gore, Al Gore''s wife.  Doesn''t get much more liberal and hypocritical than that.

 

And read your comment again, SPat?  I''ve already shredded it once, so I''m through with it.

[benjamin james 0]

I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread. I was once voted as the Ned Flanders of my company though which leaves me feeling rather odd... I dont even wear glasses that often.

[matt crowhurst 0]

houston...see you are still spouting the same old rubbish and dont get mine and everybody elses point. the fact that he got behind the wheel and drove whilst over the limit means that something BAD happened. there doesnt have to be an accident or someone getting hurt for an action to be bad.

as for the ''victim wannabe'' bit...dont see how i can be a wannabe when i was a victim, surely thats a contradiction in terms??? i can assure you i have plenty of other emotions, and am in fact very human, than the ones you stated but when it comes to drink drivers these are the most prominent ones as displayed by thousands of other people on this matter

however i would like to congratulate pattison on his tremendous performance on saturday, was my man of the match. no doubt you will criticise me on this houston but i give stick where it is deserved and praise where it is deserved. shame more people arent like that

 

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]

That was not Maude Flanders who said that, it was some woman who has been on maybe 2 or 3 episodes for a few seconds each, doing the same overly-emotional pleading, which is what the left base most of their decisions on, emotion rather than substance.  As for who the character is parodying, is is not the Christian right. It is parodying the bleeding hearts.  It''s a "nobody can do anything because someone MIGHT get offended" (or in that case, hurt) mentality.

[/quote]

Apologies Houston, it was the wife of the Rev. Lovejoy who uttered those words and not Maude Flanders.

Here''s a quick profile of her character - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Lovejoy#Helen_Lovejoy

A Republican who is married to a pastor, and you think this is a parody of the left [:|]

[Houston Canary 0]

Whining about the children is a tactic of the left.  the soccer mom phenomena Bill Clinton appealed to.  Right now, there is debate about a bill intorduced into thew California legislature that will criminalize parents who spank their children.  The people behind it are classic "what about the children" socialists who want the government to run families.  What child ever benefited from never getting a swat for bad behaviour? None.

As for the other guy, I have agreed Pattison should not have driven while drunk, but since nobody was harmed, nothing serious happened. Your emotional roller coaster seems to be based on what COULD have happened.  Yah, some bad sh!t could have happened, but it didn''t. Likewise, something bad can happen any time someone gets behind the wheel.  Should all driving be banned, since something bad might happen, or should we only prosecute those who actually do run stop signs while not paying attention?

[Jerzy Krukowski 5]

[quote user="HoustonCanary"]

Whining about the children is a tactic of the left. 

[/quote]

No, you''re wrong. Obviously not see the Chris Morris paedophile program

[quote user="HoustonCanary"]

Right now, there is debate about a bill intorduced into thew

California legislature that will criminalize parents who spank their

children.  The people behind it are classic "what about the

children" socialists who want the government to run families. 

[/quote]

 

Think you''re confusing Americans with socialists. Perhaps the people

supporting that legislation are trying to protect those that can''t

protect themselves from bullying and physical abuse. Smacking is only

used by those who don''t have the wit to work out more effective ways to

chastise children. Prove that it does some good. Trotting out the tired

"it never did me any harm etc" doesn''t count as proof by the way.

Still you carry on smacking your children, saying what you like to

anyone, carrying your guns, executing people, denying you''re destroying

the environment, invading other countries, yada yada yada and continue

to wonder why Americans don''t get the respect you want from the rest of

the world

[Evil Monkey 52]

This thread is fantastic... *light fuse, stand back, enjoy* [:)]A journey through the dangers of drink-driving, encapsulating Americans, Politics, Child Abuse and The Simpsons... oh, and Brass Eye, for good measure... oh, and I thought it was Maude Flanders too but it is indeed Helen Lovejoy.  Rookie error, I will atone for my sins by burning some heathen.  Houston, sorry chap but that sounds like you... You pesky child-abusing, gun-toting, Hummer-driving, invading executioner, you...

[Houston Canary 0]

Maybe you should read something other than comic books and tabliods.  I can''t believe anyone in their right mind with something approaching a high school education thinks "what about the children" is a right wing tactic.  The left wing relies almost totally on emotional blackmail to win support for programs that give the government more and more control of your lives. It has obviously worked with you if you think giving a kid a swat for misbehavior rather than engaging him in debate is bullying and abuse. You equate that with brutality, I guess because it is easy to trick people into siding with you that way. A swat and beating the hell out of a kid are not the same thing, but the left wing ninnies prefer to portray it that way to change the debate format and gain support of the gullible. I have barely ever laid a hand on my kids, but guess whose kids are BY FAR the best behaved in their respective classes.  They are not withdrawn, or scared, they are just good boys who know right from wrong.  How''s that for proof?

As for the California bill not being socialist-based, you have NO idea of the kind of left wing loonies residing there.  

 I don''t own a gun, but thanks to gun laws, I don''t have to hide every little item in my yard. Crooks don''t know who has a gun, so they don''t risk their lives for garden hoses, lawn chairs, rakes and every other yard item that went missing from eveyone''s homes on Earlham Road when they weren''t locked away in a garage or shed.  I applaud every execution in Texas because I know the person being put out of society''s misery deserves it.  You seem like you''d rather have them out on parole living in your neighborhood.

 The pollution level in England is way worse than it is in the US.  By world standards, both countries are relatively clean and getting cleaner with technology. If you want to bark at polluters, look at China, India and your friends in Russia.   What country have we invaded that England is not involved in the program? Glass houses, buddy, glass houses.  But I do recall England invaded most of the planet over the centuries. However, I am glad it was England and not Spain or Portugal that dominated in the end. Unlike you, I can differentiate between societal and cultural benefits offered by different groups.  Maybe you can too,  but as a lefty, you know it''s not politically correct to say so.

Once again, who was hurt by Pattison''s drunk driving?  And I don''t mean emotionally hurt because that would make you and matt victims, and maybe City could have a charity match to raise funds for your cause. HAH!

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]

This thread is fantastic... *light fuse, stand back, enjoy* [:)]

[/quote]

Great isn''t it [:D]

It''s often the way though, some of the best threads on here are the ones that veer wildly off topic.

They also give us a bit better idea of what people are like away from here. For some reason now I can''t shake the idea that the two kids Houston speaks of are probably named Walker and Texas Ranger [;)]

[Evil Monkey 52]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]

 The pollution level in England is way worse than it is in the US.  By world standards, both countries are relatively clean and getting cleaner with technology. If you want to bark at polluters, look at China, India and your friends in Russia. 

[/quote]Ooooooh, and then he goes and loses the USA/UK argument in one fell swoop... sorry, Houston, but you''re bang wrong here, mostly... Looking at just the CO2 aspect of pollution (for that is what it is), the USA is still the world''s top consumer at about 20.6 tonnes per capita per annum, the UK is on about 9.8.  Russia is 10.6, whilst China and India rack up 3.8 and 1.2, respectively. Overall, the USA is responsible for a vast chunk of the CO2 emissions, so let''s not start underplaying your part in this, Houston (and by you, I mean your country, not you personally).  I''d discuss this in more detail, but don''t have the time...

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]

''What about the children'' is absolutuely making fun of the bleeding hearts who see danger at every turn. How you twist that into a right wing things is beyond me. The right wing does not use these tactics, the left does. Once again, trying to play on emotions instead of substance.

[/quote]

It can be right or left wing depending upon how you interpret it - i.e. ''we have to build up huge defences and bomb other countries that offer any glimmer of threat because otherwise what kind of world are our children going to grow up in'' - I''ve seen variants on that used countless times to justify ''our'' actions in the last few years.     

[Houston Canary 0]

At least you got the ''monkey'' part of your name right.  The USA is, I don''t know, maybe 50 times bigger than the UK, and yet we produce only slightly more than double EvilM''s official standard for pollution. I''d say that makes the air in London a heck of a lot more smoggy than anything we are breathing in Houston.

However, if you look at the output of pollution in industry, the third world is far worse than any western ones.  I''ll bet you''re one of those gullible people that believes in global warming, too!  Most people here do too.  It''s just the latest thing that''s going to kill all of us within decades if we don''t do something abuot it now, something that will drive the economy into the ground and let the governement rule our lives. 40 yeasr ago it was over population coulped with food shortages, then it was dwindling resources, then it was global cooling, then the ozone hole, then AIDS and now global warming.   I''m sure I''ve forgotten other panics, but every one of them was generated by the left wing who never apologized when they were definitvely proven wrong.  They just made up a new panic.  And what was it they were so concerned about?  The children!  Or at least the ones they didn''t decide to abort.

Or the ones that weren''t killed by Matti Pattison when he drove drunk.  I got us back on topic.

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]

At least you got the ''monkey'' part of your name right.  The USA is, I don''t know, maybe 50 times bigger than the UK, and yet we produce only slightly more than double EvilM''s official standard for pollution. I''d say that makes the air in London a heck of a lot more smoggy than anything we are breathing in Houston.

However, if you look at the output of pollution in industry, the third world is far worse than any western ones.  I''ll bet you''re one of those gullible people that believes in global warming, too!  Most people here do too.  It''s just the latest thing that''s going to kill all of us within decades if we don''t do something abuot it now, something that will drive the economy into the ground and let the governement rule our lives. 40 yeasr ago it was over population coulped with food shortages, then it was dwindling resources, then it was global cooling, then the ozone hole, then AIDS and now global warming.   I''m sure I''ve forgotten other panics, but every one of them was generated by the left wing who never apologized when they were definitvely proven wrong.  They just made up a new panic.  And what was it they were so concerned about?  The children!  Or at least the ones they didn''t decide to abort.

Or the ones that weren''t killed by Matti Pattison when he drove drunk.  I got us back on topic.

[/quote]

Thanks for that explanation, George.

And back to your point re the ''won''t somebody think of the children'' cry being a preserve of the left - are you seriously suggesting that the anti-abortion lobby in the US is primarily a left wing phenomenon?!?!  

[Houston Canary 0]

macdougall''s perm (perhaps the best name on here),

NO, I am  not suggesting pro-abortionists are right wing. Just the opposite. My comment about "the ones they didn''t decide to abort" was a jab ar the pro-abortion lefties.  The pro-abortionists are predominately left wingers, obviously.  You don''t see a lot of abortionists going to religious services, do you. Likewise, you don''t see a lot of anti-abortionists at rallies against whatever wing ding nut case idea the loons are protesting.  That''s because anti-abortionists are more responsible because they have living children to care for (not aborted fetus shrapnel to dispose of) so they have jobs to go to instead of hippie rallies.

Besides, the comment seemed and still seems pretty straight forward as to whom it is directed at, the left. "Or at least the ones THEY didn''t decide to abort," with THEY referring back to the subject, the lefties.   Oddly enough, I am  left handed.

macdougall sperm should never be aborted!

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]

macdougall''s perm (perhaps the best name on here),

NO, I am  not suggesting pro-abortionists are right wing. Just the opposite. My comment about "the ones they didn''t decide to abort" was a jab ar the pro-abortion lefties.  The pro-abortionists are predominately left wingers, obviously.  You don''t see a lot of abortionists going to religious services, do you. Likewise, you don''t see a lot of anti-abortionists at rallies against whatever wing ding nut case idea the loons are protesting.  That''s because anti-abortionists are more responsible because they have living children to care for (not aborted fetus shrapnel to dispose of) so they have jobs to go to instead of hippie rallies.

Besides, the comment seemed and still seems pretty straight forward as to whom it is directed at, the left. "Or at least the ones THEY didn''t decide to abort," with THEY referring back to the subject, the lefties.   Oddly enough, I am  left handed.

macdougall sperm should never be aborted!

[/quote]

Actually, all I meant was that anti abortionists certainly claim to ''think of the children'' and that they are predominantly right wing - therefore not everyone who claims this as legitimation is a ''bleeding heart/liberal leftie''. [:)]  

[Houston Canary 0]

I get your point now, MacDougall''s P.  I guess it is a case of semantics, because the anti abortionists don''t really cry about ''children'' but rather about ''unborn babies''. I can''t think of a time when ''what about the children'' meant unborn fetuses. Maybe people here use different language to oppose abortion than they do in England.  ''What about the children''  here always gets attiributed to people like Hillary Clinton who wants desperately to socialize our medical system despite the obvious risks.  What about the children who have no medical insurance? (they can get on a county health program until mom and dad earn enough to pay for insurance).  Then it gets taken to ridiculous extremes.  Global warming, (what about the children). The environment (what about the children, except those in Africa where environmentalists banned DDT so malaria carrying mosquitos made a come back as did the disease that kills them in huge numbers). Welfare programs for people who don''t/won''t work (my ex-brother-in-law) but reproduce like rabbits (what about the children).   More and more ways for the government to take more control of our lives, all for the sake of the children. I mean, who could argue with that? It''s for the children (or at least the ones we didn''t abort or were killed by Pattison).

[macdougalls perm 0]

Yeah,

I suppose that it is a matter of different cultural rhetorics. But I can assure you that over here the call to ''think about the children'' is as much a right as left wing ploy (not that there seems to be any difference between right and left in mainstream politics anymore - all about the middle ground) as is the sanctity of the''honest, hard working family'' which neither Labour or the Tories ever stop drivelling on about if they think it''ll get them votes.    

[Evil Monkey 52]

Interesting you should mention the DDT thing, Houston, and you may even be right on that one.  It took a lot of effort for Rachel Carson''s Silent Springs to be recognised as scientifically accurate, but she is often credited as the mother of the Environmentalist movement, for good or ill.  Carson''s work on DDT and its effects was very important, but it dealt with the spraying of vast amounts of the chemical directly onto crops, damaging ecosystems and providing a health risk.  However the Environmentalist movement failed to distinguish between the spraying of DDT onto crops to kill pests and the spraying of DDT onto internal walls to repel Malaria-carrying Mosquitos.  An international effort to obliterate the disease once and for all was making good progress but was eventually hampered by the Environmental Movement and the chemical was eventually banned in all forms, leading to numbers of sufferers of Malaria to increase once more.  I do believe, however, that the UN has actually now lifted the ban on the spraying of DDT onto internal walls, as the benefits are far greater than the environmental impact (which, when sprayed indoors in a controlled way, is minimal).And yes, I do "believe" in man-made climate change, but you say it as if it''s some kind of fanatical or religious belief.  Sorry chap, but facts are facts and the science is now indisputable, even by your own government these days (I won''t go into the detail, I''ve trodden that weary path before).  I''m not saying that there won''t be an effort by governments and organisations to use it to their advantage, but we cannot ignore it or dismiss it out of hand.  The media and the governments have a massive part to play in the education of the masses on this topic, as it is undoubtedly public ignorance that is hampering efforts to reverse the trends.  Unfortunately, all we seem to hear from either are reports of Eco-Towns and Taxes, unless you delve into the broadsheets or science journals, and this causes people to dismiss it.  Please don''t be put off by the fact that this is an "Environmental" problem and that comes complete with millions of hippies preaching and Environmental groups protesting at every available opportunity; the science is cold and hard fact, and the problem extends way beyond the impact on eco-systems - this is a social and economic issue as well, which is where the main problems lie.  Look into it with an open mind and come to your own conclusions - something I''d recommend when it comes to any story featured in the media.  Read it, then look it up elsewhere and read someone else''s opinion.  The Environmental Movement should, in my eyes, be treated with the same cautious eye as those who claim that Climate Change is a hoax and the same even goes for some aspects of Science.  Filter through the alternative agendas, however, and the facts remain in place, and that is what is important.Hopefully you''ll realise from all of this that I''m no crazy hippy Environmentalist, since my mistrust of them is similar to yours.  I am a man of Science and I wouldn''t say any of the above if I had any shadow of a doubt in my mind.Oh, and now we''re onto abortion... splendid... [:)]

[Houston Canary 0]

 It''s a little late for them millions of people who died of malaria because of the lies put forth by the environmentalists, now isn''t it.  Is there any proof that all the DDT thaty was sprayed before has done anything at all harmful to the environment while killing off malaria almost completely?  I don''t ever recall seeing anything or hearing anything where the environmetalists come out and apologize for their pseudo-science crapola. All they do is switch directions and start wetting themselves about something else. And their science is always couched with "it might" or "it could".  If you look at THAT with an open mind, what they are also saying is "it might NOT" or "it could NOT". Junk science is no way to make decisions.  As for the UN, holy cow, what a completely worthless waste of tax payer money that group of do-nothing bureaucrats is. How many warnings have they given to Sudan to stop murdering their own people, and why should anyone get a warning and months to act on it? Have you seen the list of standards countries are supposed to maintain to be UN members? None of them achieve all of them, but many of them don''t even come remotely close, and they are the ones who get put in charge of security councils and such.  If your village is being destroyed by your own government, would you be happy the UN has given your government yet another 3 or 4 or 18 months to stop it? I mean, how long does it take to stop murdering people?

 You are another of these ones who either ignores the opposing view on global warming or just buys into the lie that it is hard fact.  It is NOT factual, and it is certainly not proven that humans have the abilitity to affect the temperature of the planet.  Look at the earth on a satellite picture and see how close you have to zoom in before you can see anything man made.  We are like an ant hill in Wembly. Do you think an ant hill will warm up Wembly?  If the temps are rising, how come the water levels have not gone up? All the docks I''ve seen are still as high above water level as they were decades ago. Why is the ice thickening in Antarctica?  Did cave men cause the end of the ice age 10000 years ago by driving around in big cars?  Because of the malthusian way of the loony left, you have to be very suspicious of everything they come up with that will end the world.

Maybe Pattison should be punished for just driving. How much did his trip destroy the climate? Crush Ipswich!

[Shack Attack 0]

The only thing that surprises me about this thread is that Godwin''s Law has yet to be invoked!

[Houston Canary 0]

Thanks for reminding me, Shack. 

According to the tenets of Godwin''s law, I am correct and the others are wrong.  Actually, I''ve never heard of it, but I likely wouldn''t like it because when I was in 11th Grade, this jackass named Kevin Godwin stuck a piece of gum in my hair. 

To answer the title of this thread, no, Pattison''s driving offense has not split the dressing room, but it has caused some hard feelings among the people who post comments here, especially the ones who equate what he did with someone who caused a massive and fatal traffic accident while drunk.  Maybe Pattison should have some of that valuable sensitivity training that has become all the rage.  He could chat with Def Leppard''s drummer.

[matt crowhurst 0]

you still dont get it do you houston and i guess you never will as you seem happy in your old little dreamworld content in the knowledge that you are winding several people up and only you could stoop so low as to your last comment

what pattison did was wrong, and BAD, regardless of whether he hurt or killed anyone or anything. drink driving is wrong, against the law, and always will be

you''ll be plaesed to know that this will be my last post on this topic as i just cant be bothered with someone like you who has no idea about being a decent human being with morals and feelings so if you want the last word, and i kinda guess you will, its over to you

OTBC

[Evil Monkey 52]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"]

you''ll be plaesed to know that this will be my last post on this topic

[/quote]What are your thoughts on man-made climate change? [:P]

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Houston Canary"]

Thanks for reminding me, Shack. 

According to the tenets of Godwin''s law, I am correct and the others are wrong.  Actually, I''ve never heard of it, but I likely wouldn''t like it because when I was in 11th Grade, this jackass named Kevin Godwin stuck a piece of gum in my hair. 

To answer the title of this thread, no, Pattison''s driving offense has not split the dressing room, but it has caused some hard feelings among the people who post comments here, especially the ones who equate what he did with someone who caused a massive and fatal traffic accident while drunk.  Maybe Pattison should have some of that valuable sensitivity training that has become all the rage.  He could chat with Def Leppard''s drummer.

[/quote]

Here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

I find that it''s particularly likely in a discussion such as this where there are arguments between "left" and "right". We all deserve a pat on the back for avoiding it so far.

Oh and I agree that Pattisons drink driving has not split the dressing room. I think said as much some time last week, before we started discussing The Simpsons, political correctness, abortion and climate change [;)]

[Houston Canary 0]

OK, matt.  I still say nothing bad happened. Something bad COULD have happened, and because of that, he deserves to be punished, which he was.  I guess I can differentiuate between what DID happen (no crash) and what did NOT happen (a crash).

 The fact you can''t laugh at the Def Leppard joke indicates you are exactly what I said from the start, a victim wannabe.   Maybe I need some of that sensitivity training. Afterall, I seem to have offended you. Of course, the fact that your whiny comments are offensive enough for me to bother to ridicule doesn''t count, so you don''t need sensitivity training.

 The fact the person who killed your dad got 2 years of not much is sickening. The judge who made that decision needs to be removed from his position. If I was you, I imagine I''d be hunting that killer down when he got out of jail.  Chances are, you''d find him leavng a pub. The criminal justice system is too forgiving to people who create victims with their crimes. Luckily, Pattison did not.  We should have a big bon fire to celebrate that, except it might destroy the planet.  It''s been a slice, matt.  Anyone else wanna have a go?  Ha ha

[matt crowhurst 0]

at last we agree on something houston. enjoyed the banter mate....whats the next subject????????

[Houston Canary 0]

If you want to have a go at environmentalism, I''m game.  I think the only possible way humans could make enough difference to alter things is if the Ipswich fans ever get excited enough to chant for more than a few seconds, the toxic fumes eminating from their muzzles could alter the climate over much of East Anglia. Even then, I don''t believe it would be a global effect, just regional. Hopefully Huckerby can shut them the f*ck up early! And often!!  Cheers.