See you're both right... but I blame Winston Churchill for the Dresden disaster (so yes, he did cause a lot of unnecessary deaths, albeit German deaths, and on principle I disagree with strategic bombing as a viable method).Blizzarded Soul said:Sorry but no. Unneccessary deaths? The british army was being slaughtered on the beaches of Dunkirk because they couldnt react to the Germans 'Blitzkreig' warfare. It was devastating as it had never been done before. If your talking about the Blitz, again not unneccessary deaths we needed those years to build up our forces and armaments to take back France, why you ask? Because it was a frigging fortress thanks to German efficiency.Rutkowski said:Winston Churchill was a twat that was directly responsible for thousands of unneccessary deaths because he was a stubborn idiot that wouldn't let the military do military stuff instead of poking his nose where it wasn't neccessary.
1. Thanks for the grammar check (think I wrote it right first time round).PureChaos said:i don't support him but it is a coalition so Clegg and Cameron are co-prime ministers. granted he won't get many votes (just like in the election) but he should be an option
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about how his incompentence led to the Italians in Africa being reinforced by Rommel and extending the destert war a long time, how he threw away thousands of lives in a pointless endevour in the Greek campaign, or how he told the Scots that held Saint-Valery that they weren't allowed to evacuate(despite them being able to do so for several days before the Germans arrived) *two weeks* after the evacuation of Dunkirk. In the end, they were forced to surrender and 10000 troops were taken prisoners; most of them didn't survive.Blizzarded Soul said:Sorry but no. Unneccessary deaths? The british army was being slaughtered on the beaches of Dunkirk because they couldnt react to the Germans 'Blitzkreig' warfare. It was devastating as it had never been done before. If your talking about the Blitz, again not unneccessary deaths we needed those years to build up our forces and armaments to take back France, why you ask? Because it was a frigging fortress thanks to German efficiency.
Being a second string party does not entail any such thing. All you can infer from that is the fact that their politics are slightly less mainstream. The Lib Dems have limited political power because of the absolute mess of a democratic system we have. The Lib Dems ARE sellouts; they should have left the Tories to crumble in their minority government. No one will trust the Lib Dems as a viable alternative again.bahumat42 said:i wouldn't call them sellouts. In order to have any sway they have had to drop their ideals, thats what being second string to a major party entails (because they were never going to outright win)UberaDpmn said:Isn't this thread a bit redundant? The UK is a democracy, we recently had elections; the result being that David Cameron won a near majority, forming a coalition with Nick Clegg of the Lib Dems *Cough*SELLOUTS*Cough*.
You don't have to re-do the elections on the escapist to find that out.
Also: Gordon Brown is a complete *Expletive*-wit and David Cameron is a dirty sniz.
Buuut... at least we got rid of (For the most part) Alistair Darlings' crazy eyebrows.
So I'd call that a win-win all round? XD
Well you are right at the moment, however the way i see it these things do not stay the same forever. Misguided fools like myself who get screwed over by the party they were prepared to waste their votes on and will continue to be lied to for the next few years tend to remember it with feeling of bitterness.bahumat42 said:right you are. But it is currently under this system. And no matter how much it sucks, imagining it to be something else only seeks to hinder what you want from the government. I voted between which of the 2 big ones were going to win BECAUSE ONE OF THEM WOULD, as the current system allows for no real point to votes going elsewhere, so im glad i voted as i did (whilst lib dems had some interesting ideas, means nothing if they get nothing out of my vote).TheMan2203 said:well to you sir i say that the numbers would of added up to get the liberals in power IF our voting system wasn't based on proportional representation, the notion of a wasted vote only exists under this regime. Interesting how the tories were all for electoral reform when they werent getting anywhere but now there in power that particular part of the manifesto has been allowed to slink away and die. Seriously this countries political system and unwritten constitution are a bloated mess that picks up vestigial odds and ends purely because of how old it is and is in dire need of sorting out.bahumat42 said:to be fair university costs were going to have to rise no matter who got in (because the lib dems were never going to get in, so gratz to anyone who wasted that vote.)hudsonzero said:i dont like cameron/cleg he raised university costs, cut the NH
... No kidding. Almost all our politicians have a 'rich' background. Most went to Eton, and generally studied in the same places. (Which usually requires a lot of money).Generic Gamer said:Cameron has so far managed not to mis-sell our gold reserves, mishandle our economy and rack up almost a trillion pounds of debt in under fifteen years. He gets my vote. That's the problem with people in the UK, they don't seem to realise that our country is flat broke. Of course we had to cut funding for things...we have no money!
Though I am reminded of a quote from Dr. Who:
"And once every five years, everyone chooses to forget what they've learned. Democracy in action."
Go watch some political shows from five or six years ago and be surprised, people always blame their problems on the current government regardless of who actually caused the problems. The other one that pisses me off is the idea that the Conservatives are the 'posh' ones. There's a political class in this country and THAT is what's wrong with politics! Almost every politician has the same background regardless of party!
Except he was chancellor of the exchequer (I.e. THE GUY IN CHARGE OF THE FUCKING MONEY) for a decade before it all went to hell, he was warned repeatedly about his spending but he ignored it all.OblivionRegained said:Brown. I mean he was asked to Captain the Titanic after being hit by the iceberg. Same boat Obama is in, but hes a much better captain.
1. the wrong use of there/they're/their is one of my pet hatesSckizoBoy said:1. Thanks for the grammar check (think I wrote it right first time round).PureChaos said:i don't support him but it is a coalition so Clegg and Cameron are co-prime ministers. granted he won't get many votes (just like in the election) but he should be an option
2. Even though it's a coalition, Clegg is not a co-PM, just plain Deputy PM... which is depressing in a sense, as (on a proportional representation basis) he really should be co-PM (First-Past-the-Post sucks major-league balls!). But then, if he was, they wouldn't be able to resolve anything, I don't think... they'd just spend all afternoon going 'hyaw' 'hyaw' 'hyaw' and achieve squat.