08-05-2009, 05:28 AM
<b><font size="3">So what is a politician?</font id="size3"></b>
Thatâs a very good question. I'd like to thank you for asking me it. Well done. Let me reply by first stressing the need to consider that question in real terms. That is to say terms that physically exist. As opposed to imaginary, or 'rainbow, mushroom pixy terms'. Or other similar methods such as 'happy gnome logic', which we donât entirely support at this time in our current topsy turvy nonsense legislation. However I think that on the balance of probabilities, and from a forward-thinking, multifaceted, pro-intergenerational polylateral perspective, if we can regenerate that particular 'vocabulary' structure which you just mentioned. On a strictly voluntary basis and using a foreword thinking person to person, me to you perspective. I think it's quasi-certain that movement on this subject could very well be retroactively multi-archived. Not at this time, but another time, say in the next ten or twenty years, decades, or in the life of the next two or ten parliaments. And in some ways I think it's double-plus-good or even triple-plus-great that in a democracy people are allowed to raise questions such as this and have an answer given. Not necessarily the type of answer they were expecting, or wanted, or not an answer in a conventional or ultra-literal sense. That would be quasi-bad-crimethink, and ultra-Paxman scary. And thatâs just not acceptable because no one wants psycho-knife consequences to quasi-bad-crimethink do they?
<b><font size="3">Yes, very interesting, but what is a politician?</font id="size3"></b>
Again thatâs a very interesting question, and there are nine points I should like to make in answer to it. Firstly to reiterate my semi-previous statement, in a contemporary framework on a here and now basis. Exercising an us and them differentiation. And in a very real sense, utilizing a dynamic verbal communication interface. I think from a pro-certain stance. We can surely on a conversational level, come to a finalistically inclined conclusion on this particular point of reference, which you have drawn to my attention. I think a long-term UN backed solution is the most viable answer to this particular commitment. Where by undertaking in consultation with other ministers, in gradual stages via a predetermined roadmap, and navigating with our moral compass, we could more significantly move towards resolving this question. In time I see no reason why we would be unable to come to a politically palatable, ingestion free conclusion which would not inappropriately vomit unpleasantries on the face of credibility. I think fundamentally the points you have raised are interesting in the same way as crushing an insect is interesting they are repulsive yet strangely fascinating. I think that perhaps in one way, but not too many ways that, this question is not the most important that we could answer, and that what we actually need to ask ourselves is, how is the economy? Is it dead or just maimed? Well, I can tell you now that Iâve seen its obituary, and we all know who killed it. Tories. But is it enough to stand chattering over its corpse, or should we get out the spades and bury it? And I think itâs important to remember that only a government free from crime-think, sex-wrong and money-gloat can realistically on a national and international level contemplate answering such a controversial and upsetting question.
<b><font size="3">Thats all very well, but what is a politician?</font id="size3"></b>
Will if you'll allow me to return to the issue at hand,immigration, I'm all for it. As long as it's carried out in the right circumstances, on a non-existent basis. As long as the immigrants all come from the same country as we do, I have no problem with it. I mean do we really want foreigners, and their strange diseases, to be callously placed in very real proximity to actual people? Is that what we want? Our traditional British diseases like typhoid, and tuberculosis, swamped by cheap foreign imports like daigo fever and gespatcho stomach? And how do we know these immigrants are human like us? After all theyâve lived abroad. Who knows what sort of warped and twisted morality operates there. On the other hand they might be perfectly nice âpeopleâ. However can we be sure they donât lack any sense of conscience or empathy, beyond the sort of contempt a ravenous vulture might show to a corpse. The answer is we canât, and I in a far reaching sense donât want to wait until we find out.
<font size="3"><b>But what in God's name is a Politician!</b></font id="size3">
Well I think from a religious perspective, there is of course a great deal of very real difference in opinion on this particular type of matter which is in this current time part of the complex social framework of this nation. And I think we all realize that these sort of questions may look innocent, but so do cute fluffy mice, and they carried the plague.
<font size="3"><b>Oh to hell with this I'll go somewhere else...</b></font id="size3">
Thatâs a very good question. I'd like to thank you for asking me it. Well done. Let me reply by first stressing the need to consider that question in real terms. That is to say terms that physically exist. As opposed to imaginary, or 'rainbow, mushroom pixy terms'. Or other similar methods such as 'happy gnome logic', which we donât entirely support at this time in our current topsy turvy nonsense legislation. However I think that on the balance of probabilities, and from a forward-thinking, multifaceted, pro-intergenerational polylateral perspective, if we can regenerate that particular 'vocabulary' structure which you just mentioned. On a strictly voluntary basis and using a foreword thinking person to person, me to you perspective. I think it's quasi-certain that movement on this subject could very well be retroactively multi-archived. Not at this time, but another time, say in the next ten or twenty years, decades, or in the life of the next two or ten parliaments. And in some ways I think it's double-plus-good or even triple-plus-great that in a democracy people are allowed to raise questions such as this and have an answer given. Not necessarily the type of answer they were expecting, or wanted, or not an answer in a conventional or ultra-literal sense. That would be quasi-bad-crimethink, and ultra-Paxman scary. And thatâs just not acceptable because no one wants psycho-knife consequences to quasi-bad-crimethink do they?
<b><font size="3">Yes, very interesting, but what is a politician?</font id="size3"></b>
Again thatâs a very interesting question, and there are nine points I should like to make in answer to it. Firstly to reiterate my semi-previous statement, in a contemporary framework on a here and now basis. Exercising an us and them differentiation. And in a very real sense, utilizing a dynamic verbal communication interface. I think from a pro-certain stance. We can surely on a conversational level, come to a finalistically inclined conclusion on this particular point of reference, which you have drawn to my attention. I think a long-term UN backed solution is the most viable answer to this particular commitment. Where by undertaking in consultation with other ministers, in gradual stages via a predetermined roadmap, and navigating with our moral compass, we could more significantly move towards resolving this question. In time I see no reason why we would be unable to come to a politically palatable, ingestion free conclusion which would not inappropriately vomit unpleasantries on the face of credibility. I think fundamentally the points you have raised are interesting in the same way as crushing an insect is interesting they are repulsive yet strangely fascinating. I think that perhaps in one way, but not too many ways that, this question is not the most important that we could answer, and that what we actually need to ask ourselves is, how is the economy? Is it dead or just maimed? Well, I can tell you now that Iâve seen its obituary, and we all know who killed it. Tories. But is it enough to stand chattering over its corpse, or should we get out the spades and bury it? And I think itâs important to remember that only a government free from crime-think, sex-wrong and money-gloat can realistically on a national and international level contemplate answering such a controversial and upsetting question.
<b><font size="3">Thats all very well, but what is a politician?</font id="size3"></b>
Will if you'll allow me to return to the issue at hand,immigration, I'm all for it. As long as it's carried out in the right circumstances, on a non-existent basis. As long as the immigrants all come from the same country as we do, I have no problem with it. I mean do we really want foreigners, and their strange diseases, to be callously placed in very real proximity to actual people? Is that what we want? Our traditional British diseases like typhoid, and tuberculosis, swamped by cheap foreign imports like daigo fever and gespatcho stomach? And how do we know these immigrants are human like us? After all theyâve lived abroad. Who knows what sort of warped and twisted morality operates there. On the other hand they might be perfectly nice âpeopleâ. However can we be sure they donât lack any sense of conscience or empathy, beyond the sort of contempt a ravenous vulture might show to a corpse. The answer is we canât, and I in a far reaching sense donât want to wait until we find out.
<font size="3"><b>But what in God's name is a Politician!</b></font id="size3">
Well I think from a religious perspective, there is of course a great deal of very real difference in opinion on this particular type of matter which is in this current time part of the complex social framework of this nation. And I think we all realize that these sort of questions may look innocent, but so do cute fluffy mice, and they carried the plague.
<font size="3"><b>Oh to hell with this I'll go somewhere else...</b></font id="size3">