Metropol

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.

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.

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

Thanks
xx

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.

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?

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

Gavin Scott wrote:Which "other countries" pose the threat of invasion, out of interest?

All of them.

Even Belgium?

No. We've already been taken over by Brussels (read: Berlin).

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?

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?