Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« October 2005 »
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Misc.
Poker
Politics
Religion
Television
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Saturday, 15 October 2005
Cameron v Davis
Topic: Politics
Just as it looked like David Cameron had managed to completely overshadow David Davis as prospective leader of the Conservative Party comes exposure of Cameron's unwillingness to state that he's never taken drugs. I asked a right-wing friend why this mattered and he replied:

It would mean that with him in charge the Tories couldn't run on a 'family values' platform.

We both agreed that this would be an excellent reason for picking him.

Monday, 17 October 2005 - 7:37 AM BST

Name: DS

Being a right wing conservative i would have concerns depending on the frequency of the white powder consumption... i.e. were there any traces of addiction, in his past. However, i am more worried about his etonian background and his apparent ability to say what people want to hear showing no convictions whatsoever, unless a drug one pops up ;) , of course!!

Tuesday, 18 October 2005 - 3:09 AM BST

Name: toryboy

What exactly does this Cameron stand for?
Looks like a Blair clone to me,his 'great speech' was merely a collection of media type buzz words and undefinable sound bites.

Friday, 28 October 2005 - 1:11 PM BST

Name: David Young

I don't think that it would have helped Cameron to make a detailed specific speech at that time. However he has laid out his thoughts. See this Times article -

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-1837542,00.html

The last paragraph shows him to view things as I do:

Quote-

"Just as there were figures in the 1930s who misunderstood the totalitarian wickedness of Nazism and argued that Hitler had a rational set of limited political demands, so there are people today who try to explain jihadist violence with reference to a limited set of political goals. If only, some argue, we withdrew from Iraq, or Israel made massive concessions, then we would assuage jihadist anger.

That argument . . . is as limited as the belief in the 1930s that, by allowing Germany to remilitarise the Rhineland or take over the Sudetenland, we would satisfy Nazi ambitions. A willingness to cede ground and duck confrontation is interpreted as fatal weakness."

View Latest Entries