Page 2 of 4
Re: david blunkett O/T
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2002 11:37 am
by jj
AFAIK, they still get non-visual cerebral input, and are therefore capable of dreaming- this is a vital part of the sleep process, without which the blind would rapidly become insane.
Oh, bugger- given Mr Blankwit, that rather spoils my argument, then....
Re: david blunkett
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2002 2:34 pm
by B.X.
were those euro tapes from Denmark? A blunder involving his guide dog ?
Re: david blunkett
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2002 3:02 pm
by jj
If anyone mentions Mandy's dog in this respect, I think I'm gonna scream.
We had enough of gay dogs in South Park.......
Re: david blunkett
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2002 5:45 pm
by Officer Dibble
Ah, the pot calling the kettle! Sir, although you are evidently an educated man 75% of your output can only be described as bandwidth wasting drivel. The officer does at least try and take pains to ensure his postings are interesting (actually about something) relevant to today?s society and the status of adult entertainment in said society. Alternately, I try and ensure my ramblings are GENUINLY amusing.
Anyhow, glad you?re feeling better.
Dibble.
Dibble.
Re: david blunkett
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2002 7:21 pm
by Nailbiter
I strongly oppose Blunkett's views on censorship and the limitation of an individual's freedoms. But, quite frankly, the comments on his blindness are despicable. Those of us with sight (or what's left of it after a years of wanking) should thank our lucky stars and just think what life would be like without it.
Censorship is a moral issue and it is perfectly reasonable to hold sincere opions about it whether sighted or not.
Picking on a disability is reprehensible.
He's still out of touch tho.
Re: david blunkett
Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:46 pm
by Officer Dibble
I don't know what Blunket's said - if indeed he has said anything on this specific subject. But you must remember that politicians talk bollocks, lies and bullshit, which pander to the prejudices and concerns of the particular audience they are addressing. So for instance if he were addressing a meeting of the 'Wimmin' Against Male Cocks Support Group' or The Annual General Meeting of the Terribly Rich, Pompous and Poncy Newspaper Editors and Proprietors Club? He would be say very different things than if he were addressing 'The Annual Booze Swilling Bash Of Maxim, Loaded And GQ Reading Young Geezers? do.
Some of these politicians are earnest and sincere - usually the nutty ones - and they usually want to harness the power of the State to make us do what they believe we should all be doing or not doing - whether you like it or not. You've got to tell 'em forcefully and straight - Fuck off; we're not standing for it! Or all your freedoms and liberties will gradually ebb away.
However, the majority of politicians are just cynics who will do or say whatever it takes to keep in their cosy, well paid, powerful jobs. If that means some comparatively decent citizens going to jail or being ruined they don't mind at all.
I say, till a credible '4th way' comes along don't vote for any of the cunts.
Dibble.
Re: david blunkett
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2002 2:38 am
by magoo
I agree with nailbiter. And I am not scared to disagree with the crowd for fear of being ridiculed unlike certain other posters who refuse to stick thier necks out and prefer to lurk and see which way the wind blows before expressing an agreeing opinion.
New Labour are Tories. We live in a Conservative minded country and Labour had to become right wing in order to get power. The whole lot of them are snivelling traitors.
But to single out Blunketts blindness is a cowards trick. Pick on his policies not his disabilities. For fucks sake you bunch of wankers are we not clever enough to rise above sneering at disablement?
And as for the regulars who posted above (including the rapidly recovering JJ) I am amazed at you ripping the piss out of blindness. Its not funny if you lose your eyesight. Idiots.
Re: david blunkett
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2002 4:59 am
by steve56
ithink porn helps to get rid of tension.
Re: david blunkett
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:46 pm
by jj
'Bandwidth wasting drivel'? Who are YOU to talk?
Don't make me laugh (it's too painful at present).....you repeatedly spam here, and dare to get the hump when people rightly challenge your empty promises?
I'd make a rough guess that you owe the mods somewhere in the region of ?1M for all the free ads you've had here.
And another ?500K for their inexplicable forbearance.
Re: david blunkett
Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:47 pm
by jj
I certainly didn't mean to cause offence: if my pathetic attempt at humour was taken the wrong way, I apologise without reservation.