Don't confuse Intellect with Common Sense. IQ by it's very definition is an accurate indicator of raw intellect.
Poll: 2nd Leaders debate - Live tonight at 8pm on BBC news and SKY news
- Thread starter robgmun
- Start date
- Status
Don't confuse Intellect with Common Sense. IQ by it's very definition is an accurate indicator of raw intellect.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
You missed the point, it's an OPINION poll chief. It's biased from the onset
I don't think I have missed the point. If you deliberately choose a sample to generate a desired result, it's anything but genuine. I mean, they even use an 'undisclosed formula' to weight the results, possibly so they go a certain way. An opinion poll shouldn't contain a deliberate bias, only the bias of the people of whom the poll was conducted upon.You missed the point, it's an OPINION poll chief. It's biased from the onset
Again, where I live, you cant find anyone who has a good word to say about Gordon, and anything other than unrestrained laughter at that clown Clegg.
Poll's are by their very nature skewed in one way or another, be it sample sizes, the type of people who make up the sample etc etc.
I mean, you cant in all seriousness no matter how much you want to believe the Internet has taken over the world believe an Internet poll showing Clegg pushing Brown into second place.
Certain types of people vote in internet polls, and a great deal of people as in the vast crushing majority of people dont participate and dont pay any attention to them either.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Do you have any evidence at all other than your "statement" that Trident is the best and most effective deterrent, and against whom?
Again, when were cheaper alternatives to Trident considered, by whom, what were the conclusions, where is your evidence?
Incidentally, how many "Liberals" are actually standing in this election, who is their leader, where is their manifesto to be found? Where have you been since the late 1980s?
I really do think that you make up these extraordinary yarns as you go along
ps - I strongly suspect that you are going to claim that you were privy to these studies when you were aide-de-camp to the Chief of Staff of Camouflaged Paperclips Procurement in Herzegovina and that you are not at liberty to disclose more
I agree, if you see my post above though, it's not the point I was trying to make.
Do you have any evidence at all other than your "statement" that Trident is the best and most effective deterrent, and against whom?
Again, when were cheaper alternatives to Trident considered, by whom, what were the conclusions, where is your evidence?
Incidentally, how many "Liberals" are actually standing in this election, who is their leader, where is their manifesto to be found? Where have you been since the late 1980s?
I really do think that you make up these extraordinary yarns as you go along :rolleyes
ps - I strongly suspect that you are going to claim that you were privy to these studies when you were aide-de-camp to the Chief of Staff of Camouflaged Paperclips Procurement in Herzegovina and that you are not at liberty to disclose more
If you bothered to read what I originally posted you would have seen the link to the relevent information.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8636879.stm
As for the rest of your post, you do realise how foolish and ridiculous you sound I imagine.
Last edited:
which without practical application is about as usefull as a chocolate tea pot. The very fact that people like you and Dolph seem so keen to spout of about how clever you are allows one to form a judgement with regard to your true situation in life.
Surely you must have some real people to talk to.
If you bothered to read what I originally posted you would have seen the link to the relevent information.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/parties_and_issues/8636879.stm
As for the rest of your post, you do realise how foolish and ridiculous you sound I imagine.
you imagine, do you imagine he has no control over what he types.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Where does this article mention who will be deterred by Trident?
Nick Clegg (of the Liberal Democrats) has suggested that the cold war may be over (you wont have heard about this bit of news yet), that whilst Trident may have been a super idea 20 years ago, replacing it now may be a complete waste of money and that we should consider that possibility and act accordingly.
I can just visualise a commander in Afghanistan announcing to his troops "OK chaps, we don't have any flak jackets for you and you will have to walk to your targets because we don't have any helicopters either. However, the good news is that we have bought some submarine launched nuclear missile systems from the Yanks and the Taliban will find out about the awesome power of these weapons real soon now . . . always assuming of course that the Americans let us have the keys."
Good on you!
As for the rest of your post, you do realise how foolish and ridiculous you sound I imagine.
To be honest, I don't actually think he does, but since he has already deserted one sinking ship he would rather not have his second one sink within weeks.
Who would be detered has no bearing on the very specific question of whether Trident is the best and cheapest of the current options to keep our nuclear capability.
If you had bothered to read my original post in this, I stated as much. The LibDems say they do not wish to remove our deterent, only investigate other cheaper options, as this has been done several times, the only reason to do it again is if they wish to scrap it entirely.
I am undecided on whether a deterent is neccessary or not, and much depends on where the UK wishes to place itself in foreign policy.
It's a shame that you cannot seem to contribute to a debate without resorting to sarcasm and idiocy, it only detracts from any valid argument you may have.
you imagine, do you imagine he has no control over what he types.
I see the concept of a 'figure of speech' is lost on you. Now there is a surprise.
it is interesting that only a few short weeks ago Stockhausen and yourself were singing the praises of Labour, and now you both support the Liberal Democrats. It shows either what little grasp you have of policy or how fickle and easily manipulated you are.
No, it just means whoever does get in (and someone will win out right have no doubt about that) it will be with a tiny majority and nothing will get done.
We will have a completely dysfunctional government for the next 5 years.
P
And why would the result be any different
Its naive to think the world will be all rosy over the next few decades. No one can be certain to who trident will deter but we all have our ideas. But then thats the point of the deterrent, because the future is uncertain. 20 years ago the cold war was at its end, threats were disappearing. Now we have new threats emerging along with fossil fuels running low in a few decades. So if it was a 'super idea' then as you say, what is the difference now.
Only if whoever is in government tries to pass controversial laws where the benefit for the country is dubious. Like for example, going to war in Iraq - that wouldn't had been possible if the Labour party had a coalition with the LibDems at the time. Instead they had a grossly disproportionate representation in the House of Commons and as such were able push the country into a wrong war with the help of the Conservative party.
that's a good point actually and would be one good thing anyway.
However, I fear for the fiscal future under a hung parliament (not that the individual parties show any particular concern here).
- Status