Saintandy666

Our elections are getting more and more presidential anyways. For what it is worth, I like the Queen, but am not a fan of Charles. I'm not overly enthusiastic of the Royal Family at the moment, but I'm quite happy to have it, as long as we reform elsewhere, i.e go to AMS/STV in the HoC, reform HoL and get a rigid constitution with a proper powerful Supreme court.

Good point.

How can you say this... isn't sexy?

Not at all. We elect an MP who chooses to lend their support to a party. If they want they could withdraw their support for the PM at any time... MPs chose the PM, not the people at all technically. None of us here actually voted for David Cameron.

Only those in Whitney(which off the top of my head is David Cameron's constituency) actually elect David Cameron. We have no choice in our leader in this country. We elect an MP who can then chose to support or not support a group within parliament, which then appoints the PM itself effectively. We do not and never have directly elected our leader. We elect a representative.

The balloon game is one of the greatest games ever invented!!!

I play a lot of tennis in the spring summer and autumn, but that kinda dies every winter... also go to the gym probably 3 times a week?

Oh, am I disappointing you? I can easily tell you what I think would be the ideal system, in my humble opinion But as I said I believe there to be more pressing issues at hand!

I'm not particularly bothered either way. I believe there to be more important issues to reform first, and I like the Queen. Prince Charles, however, could put the whole institution at risk. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

NOWHERE, I AM THE FORUM. (that's a joke) My other posts were a bit more substantial in fairness.

Space program's are very profitable. Also, India has some of the poorest people in the world.

You aren't listening to a word I am saying and still continue to seem to support the principle of colonialism, which lets face it is wrong and exploitative as well as racist. And today's empires are cultural and financial, not physical. That's because of capitalism.

You have missed my point entirely. I am not trying to say that that wasn't how it used to be, and so that was how we were. I'm not trying to deny that. I'm just saying that doesn't justify something that is morally wrong! Colonialism is wrong. Labour had no choice about exiting, we were broke and the Empire was no longer profitable. For example, India's profitability fell throughout the 30's and 40's and the US laced us with debt so we had to give up the empire. Nothing to do with ****ing up, just a world war. Suffice to say, we never should have been there in the first place. Colonialism is wrong.

Because Colonial Britain was really all about upholding human rights, was it? No, it was about exploitation, pure and simple. We wanted to use their resources to gain profit for ourselves, and others were driven by the so called 'White man's burden'. Either way, the only reason we all 'had' to do it was because everyone was doing it, but that doesn't make it right. For one, I believe we have now moved on since then in our culture and our ways, and so there is no need to cling to our past and force ourselves to justify what we did. I'm not saying we have to apologise, to apologise for what our ancestors did is stupid, but there is no need to glorify it as something driven by something it wasn't. I repeat again, forcibly overtaking and ruling other people is wrong.

I really don't know how to respond to this. It's bizarre and again shows your irrational hate of left wing politics. And to be honest, we never should have been in Africa in the first place. And I honestly do not care what you say to that, but one group of people ruling over another group of people against their will is wrong.

That's a good point. Bloody mental scheme. Far better putting them to work in community based schemes if a project like this need be done. And then let them apply for the job at tescos etc!

That's not true at all. Even more so in modern socialism, which is quite happy for the rich to get richer, so long as a fair and progressive tax system is in place to redistribute a fair amount of their money to strong public services and the welfare state. Most socialists these days are quite comfortable with rich people, as long as they pay their way. For example, they'd be ****ed at the amount of tax avoidance that goes on.

But the US were quite happy to allow us to pursue our interest. This time however, the indications are that they would be less willing to do so, simply judging by their diplomatic language. The US is quite adaptable and at the moment is changing itself to be a country, not focused on Europe, but more so on Latin America(Brazil is a big power in the making) and Asia. Andrew Neil posted an interesting stat the other day on twitter, that during the past few decades, US percentage of world GDP has not declined... it has stayed constant and Asia's gain has been entirely to the loss of Europe. Times are changing it seems, and perhaps predictions of US demise are premature is they can re-engineer themselves. But anyways, as with most of our Military action, US support is critical.

I wasn't disagreeing or agreeing with the stance, merely commenting on Alpine's derisory comment re: Argentinians saying we are becoming more aggressive over the issue.

Well, aren't we making it a little bit more aggressive by sending said Submarine and Ship?

Ahahha, brilliant. Not that it matters how many games you've been too. For what it is worth, I'm a season ticket holder and have been to almost every home game this season and Guly can be frustrating at times, but he delivers in goals and assists.

Oxlade-Chamberlain just scored... maybe I was wrong about him, thought he moved too early at first

.

We need AMS or STV now!

I drink cider mostly, but I'd pick Ale probably.