One quibble: "He was listed by Time Magazine as one of the Top 100 people whose moral example is transforming the world" is most certainly not an accurate depiction of what the Time 100 most influential people in the world list is about.
I don't want to go on too much about the political alignment of "UN Watch". Perhaps anyone interested could just read the Wiki article about them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Watch and make up their own mind about where they're coming from.
Originally posted by Fat Lady [b]One quibble: "He was listed by Time Magazine as one of the Top 100 people whose moral example is transforming the world" is most certainly not an accurate depiction of what the Time 100 most influential people in the world list is about.
I guess you would know better than Time Magazine what their definition of moral example is.
While you're at it, why don't you tell me who I should admire?
Originally posted by e4chris Tony Blair was clever and not gullable
You are joking of course.
Blair absorbs flattery like a sponge. He has an ego the size of a minor planet. And 'not gullible'? Well, you decide: after a weekend of private meetings with George Dubya Bush (and some prayin' together apparently), Blair emerged convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do 🙄
Originally posted by atticus2 You are joking of course.
Blair absorbs flattery like a sponge. He has an ego the size of a minor planet. And 'not gullible'? Well, you decide: after a weekend of private meetings with George Dubya Bush (and some prayin' together apparently), Blair emerged convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do 🙄
I fear for Kasparov's life, especially after what happened to Alexander Litvinenko and Boris Berezovsky. Kasparov is risking his life standing up to Putin. Even if you disagree with Garry, you have to admire his cojones.
As far as overreacting, it all depends on how deeply you admire someone. I have deep admiration for Kasparov. My reaction was normal based on that.. For others who don't like Kasparov or like him less, yes, it would be an overreaction.
Originally posted by atticus2 You are joking of course.
Blair absorbs flattery like a sponge. He has an ego the size of a minor planet. And 'not gullible'? Well, you decide: after a weekend of private meetings with George Dubya Bush (and some prayin' together apparently), Blair emerged convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do 🙄
I think what you miss is Blair and Bush were a bit like Thatcher - scary to have as president as they could be so willful, but terrible to have as an enemy. People mock Bush but who would you rather have as a foe? you could appease Al Gore no end but you could not appease Bush that easily.
Blair was confident / arrogant a bit but in a healthy way - he didn't need flattery, he would take very unpopular decisions if essential.
Originally posted by atticus2 You are joking of course.
Blair absorbs flattery like a sponge. He has an ego the size of a minor planet. And 'not gullible'? Well, you decide: after a weekend of private meetings with George Dubya Bush (and some prayin' together apparently), Blair emerged convinced that invading Iraq was the right thing to do 🙄
Invading Iraq to remove that dictator was the right thing to do and it would have worked perfectly if the U.S. had more courageous allies instead of so many cowards following after that French leader. You cowardly British would not have helped either, if it was not for Tony Blair. That is the way I feel about it.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 How many VCs have Americans won?
Eh?
Six.
Including Bellenden Seymour Hutcheson who was born in America and
took up Canadian nationality just so he could fight in WWI.
Off he goes and fights in WWI. Wins the Victoria Cross, comes home and
takes up American nationality again.
10 Apr '13 22:19
YouTube
Kasparov to receive Human Rights Award
Back to Top