77% of Voters Didn't Want The Liberal Democrats

User avatar
Sput
Posts: 7547
Joined: Wed 20 Aug, 2003 19.57

marksi wrote:
Chie wrote:
marksi wrote:You can't object to a voting system because it might result in a result you personally don't agree with.
I've explained exactly why I don't agree with it and that is not the reason.
You disagree with it because it would mean that your views wouldn't be disproportionately reflected in the number of MPs elected, as they are now.

Therefore you can't believe in democracy.
Image
Knight knight
User avatar
Gavin Scott
Admin
Posts: 6442
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Chie wrote:LABOUR is stubborn to the core, the petulant brats. You'd never see them trying to get along like the other two parties are. They'd be all 'oh but my mummy says I shouldn't hang around with you because you have different beliefs to us'
Seriously, Chie, when you say shit like that you come across as un-gown up as your avatars indicate.

Now it may be true that on certain policy or ideology one party or another will not budge or negotiate - and call me old fashioned but there's something rather reassuring about a politician holding on to their principles; but the last time I heard a politician speak they weren't referring to their parents for advice on what to do and say.
User avatar
Pete
Posts: 7635
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.36
Location: Dundee

Chie what is your view on the current coalition? Also why should we retain nuclear weapons?

Thanks
xx
"He has to be larger than bacon"
Chie
Posts: 979
Joined: Fri 31 Aug, 2007 05.03

Gavin Scott wrote:
Chie wrote:LABOUR is stubborn to the core, the petulant brats. You'd never see them trying to get along like the other two parties are. They'd be all 'oh but my mummy says I shouldn't hang around with you because you have different beliefs to us'
Seriously, Chie, when you say shit like that you come across as un-gown up as your avatars indicate.

Now it may be true that on certain policy or ideology one party or another will not budge or negotiate - and call me old fashioned but there's something rather reassuring about a politician holding on to their principles; but the last time I heard a politician speak they weren't referring to their parents for advice on what to do and say.
Okay, put it in another context.

"Ooooooooh but missssssssssssssssss, I don't wanna workk with themmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm"

That's Labour, that is.
Hymagumba wrote:Chie what is your view on the current coalition? Also why should we retain nuclear weapons?

Thanks
xx
I think the coalition is great.

We should retain nuclear weapons because they deter other countries from invading the UK. Imagine if some crazy state started a war with us - do you think the British public are going to roll over and accept conscription in this day and age? No. So it's a choice between conscription or nuclear weapons, the latter hopefully deterring war in the first place.
User avatar
Gavin Scott
Admin
Posts: 6442
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Chie wrote:
Gavin Scott wrote:
Chie wrote:LABOUR is stubborn to the core, the petulant brats. You'd never see them trying to get along like the other two parties are. They'd be all 'oh but my mummy says I shouldn't hang around with you because you have different beliefs to us'
Seriously, Chie, when you say shit like that you come across as un-gown up as your avatars indicate.

Now it may be true that on certain policy or ideology one party or another will not budge or negotiate - and call me old fashioned but there's something rather reassuring about a politician holding on to their principles; but the last time I heard a politician speak they weren't referring to their parents for advice on what to do and say.
Okay, put it in another context.

"Ooooooooh but missssssssssssssssss, I don't wanna workk with themmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm"

That's Labour, that is.
Hymagumba wrote:Chie what is your view on the current coalition? Also why should we retain nuclear weapons?

Thanks
xx
I think the coalition is great.

We should retain nuclear weapons because they deter other countries from invading the UK. Imagine if some crazy state started a war with us - do you think the British public are going to roll over and accept conscription in this day and age? No. So it's a choice between conscription or nuclear weapons, the latter hopefully deterring war in the first place.
Which "other countries" pose the threat of invasion, out of interest?
barcode
Posts: 1516
Joined: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 19.36

What if Pakistan Falls to the Taliban? then the Taliban has control over Pakistan nukes.

There many people not happy that the Taliban is already and has a control over some part of the country
Chie
Posts: 979
Joined: Fri 31 Aug, 2007 05.03

Gavin Scott wrote:Which "other countries" pose the threat of invasion, out of interest?
All of them.
User avatar
Sput
Posts: 7547
Joined: Wed 20 Aug, 2003 19.57

Even Belgium?
Knight knight
Chie
Posts: 979
Joined: Fri 31 Aug, 2007 05.03

No. We've already been taken over by Brussels (read: Berlin).
barcode
Posts: 1516
Joined: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 19.36

If Canada, Australian and New Zealand did that how would that work? as the head of state for those counties is the Queen, so would there just be invaliding the own selfs?

If Scotland ever got independents, I believe sir Alex will still keep the Queen as head of state. It would mean the Queen still has the biggest empire in world?
User avatar
Pete
Posts: 7635
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.36
Location: Dundee

Chie wrote:
Gavin Scott wrote:Which "other countries" pose the threat of invasion, out of interest?
All of them.
Are you living in the 1800s?
"He has to be larger than bacon"
Please Respond