thomasquinn 32989
Serious bonus points for Brian there.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
scollins
How dare yous compare hitler to that walking abortion, and I was taught not to speak ill of the dead? Well I was also brought up that you had to earn respect and that cunt didnt have any respect for the miners familys the steelworkers familys the familys of the 96 dead football fans at hillsborough because she covered up for the fuckin police so that bitch deserves NO RESPECT and I hope she rots in hell, no onto argentina what gives the english the right to own land at the other side of the planet? As far as im aware they are getting booted out of every single country that they ever occupied as no one wants them...
Holly2003
[QUOTE]
[b]scollins wrote: [/b] How dare yous compare hitler to that walking abortion, and I was taught not to speak ill of the dead? Well I was also brought up that you had to earn respect and that cunt didnt have any respect for the miners familys the steelworkers familys the familys of the 96 dead football fans at hillsborough because she covered up for the fuckin police so that bitch deserves NO RESPECT and I hope she rots in hell, no onto argentina what gives the english the right to own land at the other side of the planet? As far as im aware they are getting booted out of every single country that they ever occupied as no one wants them...[/QUOTE]
lol at the numpty.
[b]scollins wrote: [/b] How dare yous compare hitler to that walking abortion, and I was taught not to speak ill of the dead? Well I was also brought up that you had to earn respect and that cunt didnt have any respect for the miners familys the steelworkers familys the familys of the 96 dead football fans at hillsborough because she covered up for the fuckin police so that bitch deserves NO RESPECT and I hope she rots in hell, no onto argentina what gives the english the right to own land at the other side of the planet? As far as im aware they are getting booted out of every single country that they ever occupied as no one wants them...[/QUOTE]
lol at the numpty.
bulsara76
The war was in 1982 and we talk about late 1983, and Brazil and Uruguay had no war with UK...I think there should be other reasons. I hear Queen would play in River Plate stadium -Argentina-. We have not to forget that Latin American countries have serious problems with inflation in that time. When Frank Sinatra came to Argentina in 1981, just months after Queen's gig, the producer lost a million dollar because a dollar stampede -although the place was sold out-. Other reason could be a change in queen producers of the band, Freddy and the guys were working in the solo material.
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]scollins wrote:[/b] onto argentina what gives the english the right to own land at the other side of the planet? As far as im aware they are getting booted out of every single country that they ever occupied as no one wants them... [/QUOTE]
in your over-zealous hand-wringing in earnest exercise, in which you cite "ownership" as the key to your argument you neglect two key aspects of the whole debate:
1. aren't Argentina claiming "ownership" also under the guise of sovereignty? and by default isn't that equally as bad as the English (sic) - surely you mean British...as last time i checked you and your natives north of the border remain British until 2015
2. the Falkland Islands/Malvinas have been entitled to self-determination and under whatever pretext you like they chose Britain (one junta as opposed to another) so therefore, your Govt are doing no more than upholding the islanders' rights.
ps - forget the oil reserves etc, too uneconomic for britain to do anything with 8,000 miles away and Argentina has no investment capital or infrastructure to make it viable either
in your over-zealous hand-wringing in earnest exercise, in which you cite "ownership" as the key to your argument you neglect two key aspects of the whole debate:
1. aren't Argentina claiming "ownership" also under the guise of sovereignty? and by default isn't that equally as bad as the English (sic) - surely you mean British...as last time i checked you and your natives north of the border remain British until 2015
2. the Falkland Islands/Malvinas have been entitled to self-determination and under whatever pretext you like they chose Britain (one junta as opposed to another) so therefore, your Govt are doing no more than upholding the islanders' rights.
ps - forget the oil reserves etc, too uneconomic for britain to do anything with 8,000 miles away and Argentina has no investment capital or infrastructure to make it viable either
Marknow
@ bulsara76
http://allofqueen.on.ufanet.ru/book/chapter7.html
In 1982, Queen again become the “public enemies”. The motive was the Falkland War between Great Britain and Argentina. Due to the “enemy song” Under Pressure, despite the war, topped the Argentinian charts, the Argentinian government forbid to broadcast the Queen music on TV and radio and declared all four members personas non grata. It would seem that this scandal should’ve caused the compassion towards the band from the progressive society and increase its popularity in the UK. Nothing of the sort – the press lash out on Queen for the last year’s tour, accusing them in the lack of patriotism, and their new single Las Palabras De Amor, in which the Spanish words were used, was equaled to the high treason. Mercury, unlike the “progressive society”, wasn’t too excited about that war, calling it the senseless murder of young people, and the release of Las Palabras De Amor in the circumstances of jingoist hysteria was an act of a true civil manhood. The press attacked Mercury with new insults. The propaganda worked – the new singles didn’t find much success.
In diplomacy, the term "*persona non grata*" (Latin, plural: "personae non gratae"), literally meaning "an unwelcome person", refers to a foreign person whose entering or remaining in a particular country is prohibited by that country's government. It is the most serious form of censure which one country can apply to foreign diplomats, who are otherwise protected by diplomatic immunity from arrest and other normal kinds of prosecution.
http://allofqueen.on.ufanet.ru/book/chapter7.html
In 1982, Queen again become the “public enemies”. The motive was the Falkland War between Great Britain and Argentina. Due to the “enemy song” Under Pressure, despite the war, topped the Argentinian charts, the Argentinian government forbid to broadcast the Queen music on TV and radio and declared all four members personas non grata. It would seem that this scandal should’ve caused the compassion towards the band from the progressive society and increase its popularity in the UK. Nothing of the sort – the press lash out on Queen for the last year’s tour, accusing them in the lack of patriotism, and their new single Las Palabras De Amor, in which the Spanish words were used, was equaled to the high treason. Mercury, unlike the “progressive society”, wasn’t too excited about that war, calling it the senseless murder of young people, and the release of Las Palabras De Amor in the circumstances of jingoist hysteria was an act of a true civil manhood. The press attacked Mercury with new insults. The propaganda worked – the new singles didn’t find much success.
In diplomacy, the term "*persona non grata*" (Latin, plural: "personae non gratae"), literally meaning "an unwelcome person", refers to a foreign person whose entering or remaining in a particular country is prohibited by that country's government. It is the most serious form of censure which one country can apply to foreign diplomats, who are otherwise protected by diplomatic immunity from arrest and other normal kinds of prosecution.
bulsara76
@Marknow
I'm Argentinian and a Queen fan, and I can assure you that Queen was never declared a persona non grata... The real fact is that during the -i think- 3 months period of war (in 1982), ALL ENGLISH MUSIC -even Lennon's songs of peace- was forbidden, and the local radio should play for instance, Argentinian bands of rock n roll or traditional songs.
I'm Argentinian and a Queen fan, and I can assure you that Queen was never declared a persona non grata... The real fact is that during the -i think- 3 months period of war (in 1982), ALL ENGLISH MUSIC -even Lennon's songs of peace- was forbidden, and the local radio should play for instance, Argentinian bands of rock n roll or traditional songs.
Togg
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Anyone who still believes that what Thatcher did was good for the country evidently never seriously considered her policies. Thatcher is responsible for the most of the problems concerning healthcare and education in Britain, not to mention the impoverished regions, particularly in the north of England. It's like Reagan: conservatives keep screaming how great he was, but they consistently ignore the fact that under Reagan's presidency, the national debt skyrocketed from 997 billion to over 2.6 TRILLION dollars. When, in about forty or fifty years, historians start writing serious and more or less neutral histories of the 20th century with the benefits of hindsight, I am fairly sure that they will condemn Thatcher as one of the worst PM's of the century, particularly for her strict dogmatism, her inability to compromise and her complete and total lack of respect for human beings.[/QUOTE]
I think you have to keep in mind what the Uk was like in the 70's before you make that statement.
Britain was on it's knees at that time the unions had us by the balls and needed to be removed from holding the country to ransom. She was instrumental in doing that, thank god.
As for education, she was responsible for taking away school milk for which she got a lot of flak, however it later turned out that she herself opposed the policy and was forced into it by the treasury.
Personnal wealth rose by 80% in the 80's mainly due to the increase in house prices, but the effect was that the average british resident was far better off than they had been in the 70's or at any time prior to that.
Coal miners suffered yes, but lets face it there was no money left in coal production in the uk it had to go at sometime, she happened to be the one, and unfortunately much of the trouble the miners suffered was directly due to there own unions.
Like any prime minister she can be used to make many points for and against but you have to look at the economy in the uk prior to their tenure and post before you comment. In this case we were better off as a country and were no longer in the grip of the unions.Speaking as someone who lived through both decades either side of Thatcher I would say we were in better shape during and after as a whole.
Anyone who still believes that what Thatcher did was good for the country evidently never seriously considered her policies. Thatcher is responsible for the most of the problems concerning healthcare and education in Britain, not to mention the impoverished regions, particularly in the north of England. It's like Reagan: conservatives keep screaming how great he was, but they consistently ignore the fact that under Reagan's presidency, the national debt skyrocketed from 997 billion to over 2.6 TRILLION dollars. When, in about forty or fifty years, historians start writing serious and more or less neutral histories of the 20th century with the benefits of hindsight, I am fairly sure that they will condemn Thatcher as one of the worst PM's of the century, particularly for her strict dogmatism, her inability to compromise and her complete and total lack of respect for human beings.[/QUOTE]
I think you have to keep in mind what the Uk was like in the 70's before you make that statement.
Britain was on it's knees at that time the unions had us by the balls and needed to be removed from holding the country to ransom. She was instrumental in doing that, thank god.
As for education, she was responsible for taking away school milk for which she got a lot of flak, however it later turned out that she herself opposed the policy and was forced into it by the treasury.
Personnal wealth rose by 80% in the 80's mainly due to the increase in house prices, but the effect was that the average british resident was far better off than they had been in the 70's or at any time prior to that.
Coal miners suffered yes, but lets face it there was no money left in coal production in the uk it had to go at sometime, she happened to be the one, and unfortunately much of the trouble the miners suffered was directly due to there own unions.
Like any prime minister she can be used to make many points for and against but you have to look at the economy in the uk prior to their tenure and post before you comment. In this case we were better off as a country and were no longer in the grip of the unions.Speaking as someone who lived through both decades either side of Thatcher I would say we were in better shape during and after as a whole.
john bodega
Should've pumped "Another One Bites The Dust" from a giant PA when the Belgrano went in. *gurgle gurgle*