The UK General Election
Posted by Covfan
I agree its a bit of a taboo subject, but like I tried to say in the post, its not what they are, being nuclear weapons which I agree will never be used, its more what they represent which is just a card on the table.
If any serious talks or negotiations occur in the future, I think with the less cards you have on the table to push some weight behind you, the less seriously you will be taken. I'm not saying trident is the de facto, if something else can be done that's the equivalent for cheaper then so be it, but to have absolutely nothing is an appalling lapse in judgement in this modern world.
If any serious talks or negotiations occur in the future, I think with the less cards you have on the table to push some weight behind you, the less seriously you will be taken. I'm not saying trident is the de facto, if something else can be done that's the equivalent for cheaper then so be it, but to have absolutely nothing is an appalling lapse in judgement in this modern world.
salvasirignano Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DaveEllis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nuclear weapons are funny. Because lets say
> Iran
> > or some naughty country full of brown people
> > (because the way the US and UK sees it, only
> brown
> > people can be the bad guys now days), decides
> they
> > want to nuke the UK. So they do. Now lets say
> we
> > have nukes, so we nuke back and level the
> country,
> > and then we get nuked by an ally of the brown
> > people, and then the US decides we can't have a
> > war without them, so they nuke everyone and
> > eventually everyone is dead. Nuclear weapons
> are
> > nothing more than deterrents. There is no point
> in
> > having enough to flatten half of the world,
> > because everyone will be dead anyway.
>
>
> Yeah those brown North Koreans are very very
> naughty
I see what you are trying to say, but given that The US and UK don't see North Korea as an enemy currently, it just further proves my point. When US journalists were held captive in North Korea, they didn't declare war - they sent Bill Clinton over and had a photoshoot. My, how violent!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2010 02:05PM by DaveEllis.
-------------------------------------------------------
> DaveEllis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nuclear weapons are funny. Because lets say
> Iran
> > or some naughty country full of brown people
> > (because the way the US and UK sees it, only
> brown
> > people can be the bad guys now days), decides
> they
> > want to nuke the UK. So they do. Now lets say
> we
> > have nukes, so we nuke back and level the
> country,
> > and then we get nuked by an ally of the brown
> > people, and then the US decides we can't have a
> > war without them, so they nuke everyone and
> > eventually everyone is dead. Nuclear weapons
> are
> > nothing more than deterrents. There is no point
> in
> > having enough to flatten half of the world,
> > because everyone will be dead anyway.
>
>
> Yeah those brown North Koreans are very very
> naughty
I see what you are trying to say, but given that The US and UK don't see North Korea as an enemy currently, it just further proves my point. When US journalists were held captive in North Korea, they didn't declare war - they sent Bill Clinton over and had a photoshoot. My, how violent!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2010 02:05PM by DaveEllis.
I'm a swing voter to an extent on this one - although I'll definitely be voting, I haven't approached it with the intention of voting for any party "just because". I'm not prepared to vote Tory just to get Labour booted out - to me that smacks of sheer closed-mindedness. And WebCameron doesn't appeal to me anyway, for the reasons already mentioned here.
But I'm really thinking about voting for the Lib Dems now. Apart from believing in the values they stand for on paper, I think it's time to give a different party a shot at power - I know that to an extent the parties/politicians are all the same, yes, but there's bound to be some difference in the way the Lib Dems would handle things if they got elected - and the Lib Dems have never been in power yet, so who knows what they might be like?
But I'm really thinking about voting for the Lib Dems now. Apart from believing in the values they stand for on paper, I think it's time to give a different party a shot at power - I know that to an extent the parties/politicians are all the same, yes, but there's bound to be some difference in the way the Lib Dems would handle things if they got elected - and the Lib Dems have never been in power yet, so who knows what they might be like?
How do we know we have stocks of nukes and such. Sorry for being naive, but is there some sort of school register when you list who is present and whatnot?
I know with UN inspections and whatnot, but I mean, does it have to be public knowledge what nations have what?
Like with the cardboard rockets, lol, surely the logic would be to 'pretend', or at least over publicise and brag about your e-penis.
In the event of any nukes, like the flash animation with australia lmfao, everyone would point and shoot, like nuke pong.
Pointless.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
I know with UN inspections and whatnot, but I mean, does it have to be public knowledge what nations have what?
Like with the cardboard rockets, lol, surely the logic would be to 'pretend', or at least over publicise and brag about your e-penis.
In the event of any nukes, like the flash animation with australia lmfao, everyone would point and shoot, like nuke pong.
Pointless.
lmfao, i am le tired. i love that video.
fuckign kangaroos!
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2010 07:22PM by danm.
fuckign kangaroos!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2010 07:22PM by danm.
lmao at Gordon Brown (texture like sun) for his gaffe in Rochdale today.
i know he went back and "apologised" for publicity reasons, but how can he put it down to a misunderstanding? he listened to what she had to say, gave his true opinion in the privacy of his car while chatting with his aide, and then had to backtrack so he could try to look less of a tool and doesn't lose too many more votes.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
i know he went back and "apologised" for publicity reasons, but how can he put it down to a misunderstanding? he listened to what she had to say, gave his true opinion in the privacy of his car while chatting with his aide, and then had to backtrack so he could try to look less of a tool and doesn't lose too many more votes.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
yeah i felt that while watching the "interview" on the street, when she started going off on one about foreigners.
which makes me more disappointed that he (or his advisers) felt he had to pander to the media and apologise, rather than stand by his comments and views about the woman. if any more proof were needed that politicians will try to wriggle out of anything because something portrayed them in a bad light, this was a prime example. he'd have come out of it better by standing by his comments and giving reasons why he made them. he's only playing the game, but it's an insight into how two-faced politicians are (no surprise) when they want your vote.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
which makes me more disappointed that he (or his advisers) felt he had to pander to the media and apologise, rather than stand by his comments and views about the woman. if any more proof were needed that politicians will try to wriggle out of anything because something portrayed them in a bad light, this was a prime example. he'd have come out of it better by standing by his comments and giving reasons why he made them. he's only playing the game, but it's an insight into how two-faced politicians are (no surprise) when they want your vote.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
Fully agreed. There was no need to apologise - I think it paints a sorry picture for politics when men like Gordon Brown will bend over backwards to try and appeal to everyone, it makes him look shallow, spineless and wishy-washy.
K*bots UK, specialist providers of 'fun science' Curriculum Enhancement days for Primary and Secondary schools in Britain.
Please find us on [en.wikipedia.org] for more information.
gav Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not as if the majority of policies are going
> to change things - most of them are lies or won't
> be carried out due to red tape or financial
> restraint.
Spot on how I see it. But what we are sadly left with is a choice of candidates that don't all cut the mustard as we both need and would would like them to.
Most of the policies are mere pipe dreams. I guess we just have to pick the best of a bad bunch.
Sure, they all have severe flaws and gaps. However, for me, Nick Clegg's outlook is insanely optimistic with promises that even the stupid can see won't particularly work.
I think what we need is to patch up the bad work of Labour. Pronto. And THEN we can look ahead.
In an ideal scenario, I'd like to see the Conservatives win this, and come the next two terms may we see some sort of cleanup and probably then can we realistically talk about change.
Change isn't coming for a long while yet. There are too many dirty dishes to be put away.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not as if the majority of policies are going
> to change things - most of them are lies or won't
> be carried out due to red tape or financial
> restraint.
Spot on how I see it. But what we are sadly left with is a choice of candidates that don't all cut the mustard as we both need and would would like them to.
Most of the policies are mere pipe dreams. I guess we just have to pick the best of a bad bunch.
Sure, they all have severe flaws and gaps. However, for me, Nick Clegg's outlook is insanely optimistic with promises that even the stupid can see won't particularly work.
I think what we need is to patch up the bad work of Labour. Pronto. And THEN we can look ahead.
In an ideal scenario, I'd like to see the Conservatives win this, and come the next two terms may we see some sort of cleanup and probably then can we realistically talk about change.
Change isn't coming for a long while yet. There are too many dirty dishes to be put away.
gf sent me this. LOL!
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
Or maybe they had a cut-off point, and at the time of publishing the article the results were where it stood at. ie, Clegg at 49%.
Of course the media are picking sides in the most blatant fashion ever, look at the Sun. But you have to look outside the box, it is easy to make it worse than it actually might be.
I wonder how many of those late night voters were gullible students, and all the wiser, elder people in bed.
That would certainly account for the last night - to - this morning reduction in Clegg's votes.
All the wiser ones were ticking the radio boxes for Conservative over their morning coffee.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2010 02:26PM by danm.
Of course the media are picking sides in the most blatant fashion ever, look at the Sun. But you have to look outside the box, it is easy to make it worse than it actually might be.
I wonder how many of those late night voters were gullible students, and all the wiser, elder people in bed.
That would certainly account for the last night - to - this morning reduction in Clegg's votes.
All the wiser ones were ticking the radio boxes for Conservative over their morning coffee.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2010 02:26PM by danm.
Fair point Dan, but it's hard to ignore the Daily Mail's massive and obvious Conservative bias - see their 'Nick Clegg is a Nazi' article from last week, complete with soundbite from Winston Churchill's grandson (Conservative) and an inevitable picture of Cameron out jogging with 'our boys'...
I can see why people are so quick to pick at Cameron, for his weird over happyness with those around him.
But the way it works now, aside policies, is to woo the public over.
In all fairness, as much as we like to grill them all for smarmy behaviour, there is nothing better than someone leading the country who has a bit of charisma, or some sort of public link. We like to warm to them as people, not these spineless, non-public-interacting false dehumanoid machines of parliament. Maggie Thatcher had that charisma. She served for a long, long time. People like it. Makes them more confident and comfortable.
Look at America. Some of their greatest Presidents' were peoples' people. They public LOVED them. Look at JFK. Look at Clinton. Clinton served the maximum term, and had there not been such a limit, I would have thought he'd probably still be running America now. A shame, really. He was a good guy.
So in fairness, you can correlate good characters with a good population. Which then overlays with how well that said person can conduct their job. Crudely, but you catch my drift?
Off the top of my head I can't, but how many 'nice guys' were total $hitheads at their job in politics? As in nasty, unapproachable, twattish etc. I'd actually like to highlight some, if they exist.
And how many of those $hitheads were quite bad at what they did?
See my point? The smarmy playing and image of the modern election has become as important an attribute as the policies their parties enforce.
We shouldn't ridicule it every time, because a lot of people want someone they can be happy about, almost proud.
And when that person gets in power, the improved public image works wonders. Something as little as that can gain the confidence and change so many things.
Look at what Tony Blair weaseled out of John Major. He came across as this big friendly big eared goof; as opposed to old turtlehead John Major, with the personality of a potting plant. I would be willing to bet that his persona and public interaction made him more earthly to people.
They wanted that. And that was another swinging branch of New Labour's campaign.
Gordon Brown is about as approachable as a dollop of dog crap in the middle of the pavement. And he will go the same way about a dollop of dog crap too. Give it a few hours, and someone will career slap bang into it and send it flying everywhere.
Of the three main guys, Brown is just awful. People just cannot relate to him, he is like the phantom thing that sits behind the curtain in the wizard of oz. The creepy headmaster that never leaves his office. People can't relate. They grow distrust. He loses popularity. Job suffers.
Clegg is like a weedy uncle who just got promoted at his job - a job he has only been at for a very short while, and is already driving a flash car and rolling in cash. Almost like he has big shoes, but can't quite fill them. I find him too.. I don't know... just unfulfilling. Give him time, I think he will be right up there in the next election for sure. But right now he's just a bit... amateur!? He is definitely likeable, but he lacks that experience and confidence. He is kinda like the smarmy salesmen wanting to sell you the latest mobile phone. He makes out that you need it, and how friendly he is, but really, he is just in it for the commission. I get that weird feeling with Clegg. Just a bit amateur still.
Which leaves us to the clear favourite, in my eyes, and many others. Cameron.
Sure, the smarmiest, cheesiest and cockiest of the lot of them. But we need that. We need someone to take things by the balls, and be this person we need to be proud of and not groan everytime he has an idea. We need someone to just be there to do it, in the thick of things. Someone we can laugh at and relate to, and someone who can generate some interest.
We don't want bumbling theories and ideas and options all the time a la Gordon Brown. We want straight, blunt doing actions. Solutions. Cut-throat. We don't want radical revolutions just to be different in how the systems work, or changes so vast they leave us flabbergasted a la Nick Clegg.
Cameron has to win; and he will win. And our country will be a hell of a lot better for it to patch up Labour. But don't get me wrong, Lib Dems are up there. But at this moment in time, Cameron is the man and the party for the job.
Pending how well he can shift our current fortunes, he will have some serious competition if Nick Clegg runs next time round.
The Lib Dem policies are not appropriate just yet.
We just need Cameron first. Then a Lib Dem / Tory shootout in about 8 years.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
But the way it works now, aside policies, is to woo the public over.
In all fairness, as much as we like to grill them all for smarmy behaviour, there is nothing better than someone leading the country who has a bit of charisma, or some sort of public link. We like to warm to them as people, not these spineless, non-public-interacting false dehumanoid machines of parliament. Maggie Thatcher had that charisma. She served for a long, long time. People like it. Makes them more confident and comfortable.
Look at America. Some of their greatest Presidents' were peoples' people. They public LOVED them. Look at JFK. Look at Clinton. Clinton served the maximum term, and had there not been such a limit, I would have thought he'd probably still be running America now. A shame, really. He was a good guy.
So in fairness, you can correlate good characters with a good population. Which then overlays with how well that said person can conduct their job. Crudely, but you catch my drift?
Off the top of my head I can't, but how many 'nice guys' were total $hitheads at their job in politics? As in nasty, unapproachable, twattish etc. I'd actually like to highlight some, if they exist.
And how many of those $hitheads were quite bad at what they did?
See my point? The smarmy playing and image of the modern election has become as important an attribute as the policies their parties enforce.
We shouldn't ridicule it every time, because a lot of people want someone they can be happy about, almost proud.
And when that person gets in power, the improved public image works wonders. Something as little as that can gain the confidence and change so many things.
Look at what Tony Blair weaseled out of John Major. He came across as this big friendly big eared goof; as opposed to old turtlehead John Major, with the personality of a potting plant. I would be willing to bet that his persona and public interaction made him more earthly to people.
They wanted that. And that was another swinging branch of New Labour's campaign.
Gordon Brown is about as approachable as a dollop of dog crap in the middle of the pavement. And he will go the same way about a dollop of dog crap too. Give it a few hours, and someone will career slap bang into it and send it flying everywhere.
Of the three main guys, Brown is just awful. People just cannot relate to him, he is like the phantom thing that sits behind the curtain in the wizard of oz. The creepy headmaster that never leaves his office. People can't relate. They grow distrust. He loses popularity. Job suffers.
Clegg is like a weedy uncle who just got promoted at his job - a job he has only been at for a very short while, and is already driving a flash car and rolling in cash. Almost like he has big shoes, but can't quite fill them. I find him too.. I don't know... just unfulfilling. Give him time, I think he will be right up there in the next election for sure. But right now he's just a bit... amateur!? He is definitely likeable, but he lacks that experience and confidence. He is kinda like the smarmy salesmen wanting to sell you the latest mobile phone. He makes out that you need it, and how friendly he is, but really, he is just in it for the commission. I get that weird feeling with Clegg. Just a bit amateur still.
Which leaves us to the clear favourite, in my eyes, and many others. Cameron.
Sure, the smarmiest, cheesiest and cockiest of the lot of them. But we need that. We need someone to take things by the balls, and be this person we need to be proud of and not groan everytime he has an idea. We need someone to just be there to do it, in the thick of things. Someone we can laugh at and relate to, and someone who can generate some interest.
We don't want bumbling theories and ideas and options all the time a la Gordon Brown. We want straight, blunt doing actions. Solutions. Cut-throat. We don't want radical revolutions just to be different in how the systems work, or changes so vast they leave us flabbergasted a la Nick Clegg.
Cameron has to win; and he will win. And our country will be a hell of a lot better for it to patch up Labour. But don't get me wrong, Lib Dems are up there. But at this moment in time, Cameron is the man and the party for the job.
Pending how well he can shift our current fortunes, he will have some serious competition if Nick Clegg runs next time round.
The Lib Dem policies are not appropriate just yet.
We just need Cameron first. Then a Lib Dem / Tory shootout in about 8 years.
I highly doubt Clinton would have still been in power.... didn't he get sanctioned for lying about his affairs?
Clinton got the equivalent of a slapped wrist. If the Monica Lewinsky scandal was going to affect his longevity as President, he would've been removed from office long before the end of his second term.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.