The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I was watching the by-election results last night (couldn't sleep), and something struck me:
After the tories got spanked, the interviewer asked the tory representative how he felt about it;
Tory: "Well, we weren't really expecting much from either const**uancy this time.."
Interviewer: "That's not what you were saying in the run up to polling"
[Flippantly]"Don't be silly, that was just campaigning.."
"So you're saying the tories li.." (Cut off, either figuring that the lies in the campaign att**ude didn't merit much attention, or the producer in his ear-piece came to that conclusion.)
And who could blame him, at first thought, the tories' plan to deceive people into thinking they weren't a total lost cause looks like everyday t** for tat in the party-political world.
Technically a lie, but only a small one - everyone accepts it, and lets it go.
Is this really a good att**ude to have - accepting the little lies as fair game, legitimate politics ?
If not they're certainly not worth paying much attention to.. are they ?
Another report into pre-war intelligence has highlighted how the government tweaked intelligence, to make it more 'pallatable' to the electorate.
'Might have's turned into 'does have's, cautionary warnings of intelligence limitations dropped.
If you want to look you'll find loads of examples. If you've looked at the reports in any sort of depth you'll already have seen plenty.
Small lies. That's what they are.
'A mistruth, made with the intention to decieve'.
That's what they all are. They are knowingly tweaked, to convey false information (claiming certainty where there is none), and with the intent of making people believe in this false certainty.
Small lies, but lies nonetheless. But because of their size, because they're such small things, everyone seems to accept them as fair game, 'legitimate' lies, not worth bothering about.
It should be abundantly clear where I'm going - together, these small lies accumulated to try to decieve the public into believing a damn big falsehood - that we knew Saddam 'did' have WMDs, and so a war was legitimate.
What degree of knowledge did Blair have? Did he find himself swept along eventually believing the falsehood?
I think we can be sure Blair knew these changes to the intelligence were being made, these lies designed to decieve us as to the certainty of our intelligence.
That's enough for me.
Small lies, but together they became part of an effort to decieve us all.
And they view it as fair game.
After the tories got spanked, the interviewer asked the tory representative how he felt about it;
Tory: "Well, we weren't really expecting much from either const**uancy this time.."
Interviewer: "That's not what you were saying in the run up to polling"
[Flippantly]"Don't be silly, that was just campaigning.."
"So you're saying the tories li.." (Cut off, either figuring that the lies in the campaign att**ude didn't merit much attention, or the producer in his ear-piece came to that conclusion.)
And who could blame him, at first thought, the tories' plan to deceive people into thinking they weren't a total lost cause looks like everyday t** for tat in the party-political world.
Technically a lie, but only a small one - everyone accepts it, and lets it go.
Is this really a good att**ude to have - accepting the little lies as fair game, legitimate politics ?
If not they're certainly not worth paying much attention to.. are they ?
Another report into pre-war intelligence has highlighted how the government tweaked intelligence, to make it more 'pallatable' to the electorate.
'Might have's turned into 'does have's, cautionary warnings of intelligence limitations dropped.
If you want to look you'll find loads of examples. If you've looked at the reports in any sort of depth you'll already have seen plenty.
Small lies. That's what they are.
'A mistruth, made with the intention to decieve'.
That's what they all are. They are knowingly tweaked, to convey false information (claiming certainty where there is none), and with the intent of making people believe in this false certainty.
Small lies, but lies nonetheless. But because of their size, because they're such small things, everyone seems to accept them as fair game, 'legitimate' lies, not worth bothering about.
It should be abundantly clear where I'm going - together, these small lies accumulated to try to decieve the public into believing a damn big falsehood - that we knew Saddam 'did' have WMDs, and so a war was legitimate.
What degree of knowledge did Blair have? Did he find himself swept along eventually believing the falsehood?
I think we can be sure Blair knew these changes to the intelligence were being made, these lies designed to decieve us as to the certainty of our intelligence.
That's enough for me.
Small lies, but together they became part of an effort to decieve us all.
And they view it as fair game.
Only thing you can do is wait until the next election and vote out the best opposition ............. oh, never mind.
(ah well i'm off to Japan within 4 years so Blair can send this country down the gutter to get his mug in the history books all he wants for all i care)
(ah well i'm off to Japan within 4 years so Blair can send this country down the gutter to get his mug in the history books all he wants for all i care)
Yeah, but there seems to be a world of difference between those little lies that we accept and the big ones, which rightly court outrage.
That was my point really, that those little ones can sometimes do as much damage, that perhaps we can't afford to turn a blind eye any more.
That was my point really, that those little ones can sometimes do as much damage, that perhaps we can't afford to turn a blind eye any more.
Heh, its too true.
I remember an old saying my grandad once told me:
*Son there are only 3 things in this life that are for certain - Death, Taxes and politicians telling lies*
*Son there are only 3 things in this life that are for certain - Death, Taxes and politicians telling lies*
I was watching the by-election results last night (couldn't sleep), and something struck me:
After the tories got spanked, the interviewer asked the tory representative how he felt about it;
Tory: "Well, we weren't really expecting much from either const**uancy this time.."
Interviewer: "That's not what you were saying in the run up to polling"
[Flippantly]"Don't be silly, that was just campaigning.."
"So you're saying the tories li.." (Cut off, either figuring that the lies in the campaign att**ude didn't merit much attention, or the producer in his ear-piece came to that conclusion.)
And who could blame him, at first thought, the tories' plan to deceive people into thinking they weren't a total lost cause looks like everyday t** for tat in the party-political world.
Technically a lie, but only a small one - everyone accepts it, and lets it go.
Is this really a good att**ude to have - accepting the little lies as fair game, legitimate politics ?
If not they're certainly not worth paying much attention to.. are they ?
Another report into pre-war intelligence has highlighted how the government tweaked intelligence, to make it more 'pallatable' to the electorate.
'Might have's turned into 'does have's, cautionary warnings of intelligence limitations dropped.
If you want to look you'll find loads of examples. If you've looked at the reports in any sort of depth you'll already have seen plenty.
Small lies. That's what they are.
'A mistruth, made with the intention to decieve'.
That's what they all are. They are knowingly tweaked, to convey false information (claiming certainty where there is none), and with the intent of making people believe in this false certainty.
Small lies, but lies nonetheless. But because of their size, because they're such small things, everyone seems to accept them as fair game, 'legitimate' lies, not worth bothering about.
It should be abundantly clear where I'm going - together, these small lies accumulated to try to decieve the public into believing a damn big falsehood - that we knew Saddam 'did' have WMDs, and so a war was legitimate.
What degree of knowledge did Blair have? Did he find himself swept along eventually believing the falsehood?
I think we can be sure Blair knew these changes to the intelligence were being made, these lies designed to decieve us as to the certainty of our intelligence.
That's enough for me.
Small lies, but together they became part of an effort to decieve us all.
And they view it as fair game.
After the tories got spanked, the interviewer asked the tory representative how he felt about it;
Tory: "Well, we weren't really expecting much from either const**uancy this time.."
Interviewer: "That's not what you were saying in the run up to polling"
[Flippantly]"Don't be silly, that was just campaigning.."
"So you're saying the tories li.." (Cut off, either figuring that the lies in the campaign att**ude didn't merit much attention, or the producer in his ear-piece came to that conclusion.)
And who could blame him, at first thought, the tories' plan to deceive people into thinking they weren't a total lost cause looks like everyday t** for tat in the party-political world.
Technically a lie, but only a small one - everyone accepts it, and lets it go.
Is this really a good att**ude to have - accepting the little lies as fair game, legitimate politics ?
If not they're certainly not worth paying much attention to.. are they ?
Another report into pre-war intelligence has highlighted how the government tweaked intelligence, to make it more 'pallatable' to the electorate.
'Might have's turned into 'does have's, cautionary warnings of intelligence limitations dropped.
If you want to look you'll find loads of examples. If you've looked at the reports in any sort of depth you'll already have seen plenty.
Small lies. That's what they are.
'A mistruth, made with the intention to decieve'.
That's what they all are. They are knowingly tweaked, to convey false information (claiming certainty where there is none), and with the intent of making people believe in this false certainty.
Small lies, but lies nonetheless. But because of their size, because they're such small things, everyone seems to accept them as fair game, 'legitimate' lies, not worth bothering about.
It should be abundantly clear where I'm going - together, these small lies accumulated to try to decieve the public into believing a damn big falsehood - that we knew Saddam 'did' have WMDs, and so a war was legitimate.
What degree of knowledge did Blair have? Did he find himself swept along eventually believing the falsehood?
I think we can be sure Blair knew these changes to the intelligence were being made, these lies designed to decieve us as to the certainty of our intelligence.
That's enough for me.
Small lies, but together they became part of an effort to decieve us all.
And they view it as fair game.