The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has offended Germany *and* refused to apologise, as he heads into a 6 month Italian EU Parliament presidency.
Timing was.. interesting, after hearing very little in international news, as the Italian presidency starts attention falls on Berlusconi's bad moral track record.
Alongside his control over most of the country's media, he's forced through criminal immunity laws to protect himself from prosecution for charges of bribery.
And as attention falls on him, he loses his rag with a barracking politician (acting as could be predicted) and makes remarks that ‘sort of’ offend a whole country. Then inflames the situation by refusing to back down or apologise.
I feel like I’m watching a cheap magician, waving one hand around, drawing attention, while the other goes unnoticed in its work.
I find it hard to believe a man capable of becoming the Prime Minister of Italy does not have the intelligence or self-control to avoid making comments heard from him in the past couple of days.
So the rouse seems like the only explanation.
But we don’t just see it in Italy. The announcement for the examination of evidence used as the basis for going to war comes as Beckham hi-jacks all news stories. When that doesn’t manage to submerge the story, attention is shifted (as I’ve pointed out before) to a completely irrelevant angle – how quickly could Hussein have launched an attack, while the basis for war was that his weapons could get to other peoples’ hands. Everyone admitted he’d not use them himself.
And that’s just the latest example of it happening. I always used to look on claims of such a degree of governmental deceit with a lot of scepticism. But things don’t add up, people who’ve made it to the height of government power aren’t sufficiently stupid for these kinds of things to be purely accidental.
I know politicians are well practised in not answering questions, but this takes the pish.
I no longer trust.
Timing was.. interesting, after hearing very little in international news, as the Italian presidency starts attention falls on Berlusconi's bad moral track record.
Alongside his control over most of the country's media, he's forced through criminal immunity laws to protect himself from prosecution for charges of bribery.
And as attention falls on him, he loses his rag with a barracking politician (acting as could be predicted) and makes remarks that ‘sort of’ offend a whole country. Then inflames the situation by refusing to back down or apologise.
I feel like I’m watching a cheap magician, waving one hand around, drawing attention, while the other goes unnoticed in its work.
I find it hard to believe a man capable of becoming the Prime Minister of Italy does not have the intelligence or self-control to avoid making comments heard from him in the past couple of days.
So the rouse seems like the only explanation.
But we don’t just see it in Italy. The announcement for the examination of evidence used as the basis for going to war comes as Beckham hi-jacks all news stories. When that doesn’t manage to submerge the story, attention is shifted (as I’ve pointed out before) to a completely irrelevant angle – how quickly could Hussein have launched an attack, while the basis for war was that his weapons could get to other peoples’ hands. Everyone admitted he’d not use them himself.
And that’s just the latest example of it happening. I always used to look on claims of such a degree of governmental deceit with a lot of scepticism. But things don’t add up, people who’ve made it to the height of government power aren’t sufficiently stupid for these kinds of things to be purely accidental.
I know politicians are well practised in not answering questions, but this takes the pish.
I no longer trust.
Page:
oops, I meant surgeon.
lalakersrule wrote:
> I would have thought our already huge tax rates should be able to
> provide a service that isn't only slightly better than a 3rd world
> country, although having never been to a 3rd world country and
> experienced it's health service i could be wrong and in fact their
> service could actually be better then ours :D
How about an operation in a dusty old shed, where the sergeon (your postman) uses a rusty and slighlty bent, 6 inch nail as a scalpol and tries to remove the tumor from your brain. I think i'd rather have a longer waiting list...
> I would have thought our already huge tax rates should be able to
> provide a service that isn't only slightly better than a 3rd world
> country, although having never been to a 3rd world country and
> experienced it's health service i could be wrong and in fact their
> service could actually be better then ours :D
How about an operation in a dusty old shed, where the sergeon (your postman) uses a rusty and slighlty bent, 6 inch nail as a scalpol and tries to remove the tumor from your brain. I think i'd rather have a longer waiting list...
Practical Magic wrote:
> Same goes for the NHS. We all want a world class system yes ? Then we
> have to pay for it ! But no one wants to know that, they want to know
> how we improve things without paying more taxes, involving private
> finance and medical insurers.
I would have thought our already huge tax rates should be able to provide a service that isn't only slightly better than a 3rd world country, although having never been to a 3rd world country and experienced it's health service i could be wrong and in fact their service could actually be better then ours :D
> Same goes for the NHS. We all want a world class system yes ? Then we
> have to pay for it ! But no one wants to know that, they want to know
> how we improve things without paying more taxes, involving private
> finance and medical insurers.
I would have thought our already huge tax rates should be able to provide a service that isn't only slightly better than a 3rd world country, although having never been to a 3rd world country and experienced it's health service i could be wrong and in fact their service could actually be better then ours :D
Dr Duck wrote
> Honesty seems a lot to ask of politicians these days. Maybe it always
> was.
> But I'm not ready to give the ideal up, just because they can get by
> without it.
I think it's more of a case that in today's world an honest politician would not get anywhere.
Example; An honest reason to go to war with Iraq would have been that a dictator installed by the West had since gone on to commit atrocity after atrocity, threaten regional security, and therefore it was imperative that his regime be removed.
No one would buy it. The only way to do it was to make people feel threatened themselves, not point out that people in a foreign land were suffering because no one would support a war for that.
Same goes for the NHS. We all want a world class system yes ? Then we have to pay for it ! But no one wants to know that, they want to know how we improve things without paying more taxes, involving private finance and medical insurers.
Congestion on the roads ? Money into public transport, serious money, and alternative forms. No one wants to hear that, they all want to know how to decrease congestion whilst "someone else" i.e not them, doesn't use their car.
Most people don't want the truth, to be a politician depends on the support of most people, hence the problem we have now.
Then of course there is the question of what truth people want to hear and what people want to hear...
> Honesty seems a lot to ask of politicians these days. Maybe it always
> was.
> But I'm not ready to give the ideal up, just because they can get by
> without it.
I think it's more of a case that in today's world an honest politician would not get anywhere.
Example; An honest reason to go to war with Iraq would have been that a dictator installed by the West had since gone on to commit atrocity after atrocity, threaten regional security, and therefore it was imperative that his regime be removed.
No one would buy it. The only way to do it was to make people feel threatened themselves, not point out that people in a foreign land were suffering because no one would support a war for that.
Same goes for the NHS. We all want a world class system yes ? Then we have to pay for it ! But no one wants to know that, they want to know how we improve things without paying more taxes, involving private finance and medical insurers.
Congestion on the roads ? Money into public transport, serious money, and alternative forms. No one wants to hear that, they all want to know how to decrease congestion whilst "someone else" i.e not them, doesn't use their car.
Most people don't want the truth, to be a politician depends on the support of most people, hence the problem we have now.
Then of course there is the question of what truth people want to hear and what people want to hear...
I think that if you are in charge of a country, you should have the capability to predict what will cause outrage amongst people or another country, most people know that most Germans hate what the Nazi's did, and therefore don't like to have to take the blame or be called Nazi's. I don't know the whole story but that's how I feel, at least I think it is, my head hurts at the moment so I might have got it wrong, sorry if I have
|:
|:
Practical Magic wrote:
> He lets emotion get in his way. He should have been able to deal with
> the opposition, but the guy must be under a lot of pressure from
> various places, he lost his rag, fired off his mouth.
Perhaps, I'm not convinced.
> Not saying that politicians don't deflect attention from stories
> sometimes, but is it their fault for doing it or the public's for
> being so easily deflected in the first place ?
'Fault'? Hmm.
I guess in a very Machiavellian style you can't exactly blame them when they can get away with it.
Nevertheless, when they chose to cover something up, whether through lies, deceit or misdirection, I'd consider their moral position to be more or less the same.
Honesty seems a lot to ask of politicians these days. Maybe it always was.
But I'm not ready to give the ideal up, just because they can get by without it.
> He lets emotion get in his way. He should have been able to deal with
> the opposition, but the guy must be under a lot of pressure from
> various places, he lost his rag, fired off his mouth.
Perhaps, I'm not convinced.
> Not saying that politicians don't deflect attention from stories
> sometimes, but is it their fault for doing it or the public's for
> being so easily deflected in the first place ?
'Fault'? Hmm.
I guess in a very Machiavellian style you can't exactly blame them when they can get away with it.
Nevertheless, when they chose to cover something up, whether through lies, deceit or misdirection, I'd consider their moral position to be more or less the same.
Honesty seems a lot to ask of politicians these days. Maybe it always was.
But I'm not ready to give the ideal up, just because they can get by without it.
He lets emotion get in his way. He should have been able to deal with the opposition, but the guy must be under a lot of pressure from various places, he lost his rag, fired off his mouth.
Not saying that politicians don't deflect attention from stories sometimes, but is it their fault for doing it or the public's for being so easily deflected in the first place ?
Not saying that politicians don't deflect attention from stories sometimes, but is it their fault for doing it or the public's for being so easily deflected in the first place ?
Though Charles and Phillip never had to earn their positions, or had to hold onto them by their own competence.
Berlusconi, to work with the example, had to have know he'd encounter opposition to his proposed direction for the Parliament, and should have been able to prepare to deal with it in a reasonable manner.
More to the point, he must have encountered such forms of opposition countless times on his way to the 'top', surely we can assume him to be well practiced in dealing with it appropriately?
Berlusconi, to work with the example, had to have know he'd encounter opposition to his proposed direction for the Parliament, and should have been able to prepare to deal with it in a reasonable manner.
More to the point, he must have encountered such forms of opposition countless times on his way to the 'top', surely we can assume him to be well practiced in dealing with it appropriately?
I have another explanation, Berlusconi really is that stupid. Look at Charles and Phillip in the Royal Family, bot accomplished at making ill timed comments, bad taste jokes etc.
Of course you could argue that such speeches are only considered offensive because the majority of the media is liberally biased.
Of course you could argue that such speeches are only considered offensive because the majority of the media is liberally biased.
So, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has offended Germany *and* refused to apologise, as he heads into a 6 month Italian EU Parliament presidency.
Timing was.. interesting, after hearing very little in international news, as the Italian presidency starts attention falls on Berlusconi's bad moral track record.
Alongside his control over most of the country's media, he's forced through criminal immunity laws to protect himself from prosecution for charges of bribery.
And as attention falls on him, he loses his rag with a barracking politician (acting as could be predicted) and makes remarks that ‘sort of’ offend a whole country. Then inflames the situation by refusing to back down or apologise.
I feel like I’m watching a cheap magician, waving one hand around, drawing attention, while the other goes unnoticed in its work.
I find it hard to believe a man capable of becoming the Prime Minister of Italy does not have the intelligence or self-control to avoid making comments heard from him in the past couple of days.
So the rouse seems like the only explanation.
But we don’t just see it in Italy. The announcement for the examination of evidence used as the basis for going to war comes as Beckham hi-jacks all news stories. When that doesn’t manage to submerge the story, attention is shifted (as I’ve pointed out before) to a completely irrelevant angle – how quickly could Hussein have launched an attack, while the basis for war was that his weapons could get to other peoples’ hands. Everyone admitted he’d not use them himself.
And that’s just the latest example of it happening. I always used to look on claims of such a degree of governmental deceit with a lot of scepticism. But things don’t add up, people who’ve made it to the height of government power aren’t sufficiently stupid for these kinds of things to be purely accidental.
I know politicians are well practised in not answering questions, but this takes the pish.
I no longer trust.
Timing was.. interesting, after hearing very little in international news, as the Italian presidency starts attention falls on Berlusconi's bad moral track record.
Alongside his control over most of the country's media, he's forced through criminal immunity laws to protect himself from prosecution for charges of bribery.
And as attention falls on him, he loses his rag with a barracking politician (acting as could be predicted) and makes remarks that ‘sort of’ offend a whole country. Then inflames the situation by refusing to back down or apologise.
I feel like I’m watching a cheap magician, waving one hand around, drawing attention, while the other goes unnoticed in its work.
I find it hard to believe a man capable of becoming the Prime Minister of Italy does not have the intelligence or self-control to avoid making comments heard from him in the past couple of days.
So the rouse seems like the only explanation.
But we don’t just see it in Italy. The announcement for the examination of evidence used as the basis for going to war comes as Beckham hi-jacks all news stories. When that doesn’t manage to submerge the story, attention is shifted (as I’ve pointed out before) to a completely irrelevant angle – how quickly could Hussein have launched an attack, while the basis for war was that his weapons could get to other peoples’ hands. Everyone admitted he’d not use them himself.
And that’s just the latest example of it happening. I always used to look on claims of such a degree of governmental deceit with a lot of scepticism. But things don’t add up, people who’ve made it to the height of government power aren’t sufficiently stupid for these kinds of things to be purely accidental.
I know politicians are well practised in not answering questions, but this takes the pish.
I no longer trust.
Page: