|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 3, 2009 22:39:27 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but why is there only two choices? What is it about you Americans who think you have some divine rule over the world and have to be some kind of policeman for the rest of us? Fuck off man. Britain's actually the worst country in the world for trying to police and impose their culture on others historically. You can't criticise america for assuming our role unless you admit the two countries are actually very similar.. Imagine if America adopted CCTV from Britain (I know some places in the US have it, but I mean make it universal....). All hell would break loose -- I, personally, support CCTV, but shit would go down if it was made universal in the US
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 3, 2009 23:56:09 GMT -5
Britain's actually the worst country in the world for trying to police and impose their culture on others historically. You can't criticise america for assuming our role unless you admit the two countries are actually very similar.. Imagine if America adopted CCTV from Britain (I know some places in the US have it, but I mean make it universal....). All hell would break loose -- I, personally, support CCTV, but shit would go down if it was made universal in the US i think we've all gotten a bit off track. north korea = bad. your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jul 4, 2009 9:43:21 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but why is there only two choices? What is it about you Americans who think you have some divine rule over the world and have to be some kind of policeman for the rest of us? Fuck off man. Britain's actually the worst country in the world for trying to police and impose their culture on others historically. You can't criticise america for assuming our role unless you admit the two countries are actually very similar.. pish
|
|
|
Post by quellophant on Jul 4, 2009 17:17:00 GMT -5
Have you not heard of the british empire or something? Far more disgusting than the american's current policy.
On point, I don't know if there's anything you can do to stop NK now in all seriousness. They've said sanctions will be considered as a declaration of war. A smaller, far more unpredictable country will have much less reservation to use a nuclear weapon too, which is quite worrying. There should have been an invasion before they actually finished developing it.
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Jul 4, 2009 18:01:37 GMT -5
When did I calim to know all the answers? I did say that it would appear the only two choices we have are further sanctions or invasion, as we've tried everything else with North Korea already and look where it got us. As for the Iranian regime ya, it is in our long term interest to deal the regime a fatal blow. Now that so many people have risen up it would appear that while being far from a fatal blow now, the cracks this has put in the regime will be fatal in the long run so there ya go, problem will be solved internally eventually. Pretty impressive, now what are the North Koreans waiting for? I'm sorry, but why is there only two choices? What is it about you Americans who think you have some divine rule over the world and have to be some kind of policeman for the rest of us? Fuck off man. There's only two choices because as I have already pointed out you have yet to offer a third! And the last time I checked North Korea was threatening to launch missles a the USA. As far as I know Kim Jong Il ain't said shit about nuking Scotland so you can go back to your haggis and let Team America worry about it.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jul 4, 2009 18:52:51 GMT -5
Feel sorry for the North Korean people. State controlled TV, no internet access - most of them have no idea what is going on outside the country.
These missiles are a warning to the North Korean people who are starting to despise Kim Jong Il and a threat to the rest of us.
Strong soldiers, but shit resources i.e. Soviet style planes from the 50s/60s.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jul 5, 2009 2:33:59 GMT -5
Have you not heard of the british empire or something? Far more disgusting than the american's current policy. On point, I don't know if there's anything you can do to stop NK now in all seriousness. They've said sanctions will be considered as a declaration of war. A smaller, far more unpredictable country will have much less reservation to use a nuclear weapon too, which is quite worrying. There should have been an invasion before they actually finished developing it. What the hell has the british empire got to do with the opinions of a couple of numpties on this forum? I suggest you read what I said again.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jul 5, 2009 2:42:56 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but why is there only two choices? What is it about you Americans who think you have some divine rule over the world and have to be some kind of policeman for the rest of us? Fuck off man. There's only two choices because as I have already pointed out you have yet to offer a third! And the last time I checked North Korea was threatening to launch missles a the USA. As far as I know Kim Jong Il ain't said shit about nuking Scotland so you can go back to your haggis and let Team America worry about it. Aye and you can go back to playing with your guns. Be careful you don't point them at your face or anything.
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Jul 5, 2009 6:02:08 GMT -5
There's only two choices because as I have already pointed out you have yet to offer a third! And the last time I checked North Korea was threatening to launch missles a the USA. As far as I know Kim Jong Il ain't said shit about nuking Scotland so you can go back to your haggis and let Team America worry about it. Aye and you can go back to playing with your guns. Be careful you don't point them at your face or anything. Can't, my guns are locked away in torage back at home while I'm here. Thanks for your concern but don't worry, I'm safe as safe can be!
|
|
|
Post by puretone on Jul 5, 2009 9:42:25 GMT -5
Meh whatever. That puppet from team america wants to have nuclear weapons people are saying he cant and he'll be punished if he does he threatens to blow them up if they dont fuck off. Whatever you're both huge vaginas and I hope ye sink each other.
|
|
|
Post by quellophant on Jul 5, 2009 13:18:29 GMT -5
Have you not heard of the british empire or something? Far more disgusting than the american's current policy. On point, I don't know if there's anything you can do to stop NK now in all seriousness. They've said sanctions will be considered as a declaration of war. A smaller, far more unpredictable country will have much less reservation to use a nuclear weapon too, which is quite worrying. There should have been an invasion before they actually finished developing it. What the hell has the british empire got to do with the opinions of a couple of numpties on this forum? I suggest you read what I said again. Are you serious? You said america should stay out of people's business. I said britain was worse, you said pish. I said that. How is that not on-topic, retard?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 5, 2009 13:58:45 GMT -5
What the hell has the british empire got to do with the opinions of a couple of numpties on this forum? I suggest you read what I said again. Are you serious? You said america should stay out of people's business. I said britain was worse, you said pish. I said that. How is that not on-topic, retard? time have moved on, i suggest you move into the present
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jul 6, 2009 1:42:08 GMT -5
What the hell has the british empire got to do with the opinions of a couple of numpties on this forum? I suggest you read what I said again. Are you serious? You said america should stay out of people's business. I said britain was worse, you said pish. I said that. How is that not on-topic, retard? You do know its 2009? The British Empire is long gone. To pull me up for complaing about the views of a couple of people on this forums view on N Korea because hundreds of years ago, the British elite decided to run riot over half the world is moronic. You're the retard I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 6, 2009 10:14:03 GMT -5
Are you serious? You said america should stay out of people's business. I said britain was worse, you said pish. I said that. How is that not on-topic, retard? You do know its 2009? The British Empire is long gone. To pull me up for complaing about the views of a couple of people on this forums view on N Korea because hundreds of years ago, the British elite decided to run riot over half the world is moronic. You're the retard I'm afraid. is the queen not the head of state in canada, australia, new zealand, jamaica, belize, much of the pacific islands and the caribbean?
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jul 6, 2009 10:48:03 GMT -5
You do know its 2009? The British Empire is long gone. To pull me up for complaing about the views of a couple of people on this forums view on N Korea because hundreds of years ago, the British elite decided to run riot over half the world is moronic. You're the retard I'm afraid. is the queen not the head of state in canada, australia, new zealand, jamaica, belize, much of the pacific islands and the caribbean? Aye, but all those countries are independent coutries, they have no rule from GB whatsoever. If they didn't want her as head of state, then she wouldnt be.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 6, 2009 11:40:44 GMT -5
is the queen not the head of state in canada, australia, new zealand, jamaica, belize, much of the pacific islands and the caribbean? Aye, but all those countries are independent coutries, they have no rule from GB whatsoever. If they didn't want her as head of state, then she wouldnt be. don't they need the british monarch's consent before passing laws, entering wars, etc.? they do have the queen's face on their money and stamps... as for the voting, i think it's a lot more complicated than that.
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jul 6, 2009 13:39:51 GMT -5
Aye, but all those countries are independent coutries, they have no rule from GB whatsoever. If they didn't want her as head of state, then she wouldnt be. don't they need the british monarch's consent before passing laws, entering wars, etc.? they do have the queen's face on their money and stamps... as for the voting, i think it's a lot more complicated than that. lol I doubt she has any political powers in any of those countries, considering she doesnt have any in the UK!
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Jul 7, 2009 3:45:38 GMT -5
Aye, but all those countries are independent coutries, they have no rule from GB whatsoever. If they didn't want her as head of state, then she wouldnt be. don't they need the british monarch's consent before passing laws, entering wars, etc.? they do have the queen's face on their money and stamps... as for the voting, i think it's a lot more complicated than that. only symbolic consent, she has zero actual political power anywhere, although people would listen and take her opinion on board. Not sure the Charles will be so well respected when/if he becomes king.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 7, 2009 9:19:36 GMT -5
then what's the point of having them? it's a waste of taxpayer's money. why do you pay taxes for them to live this luxurious life when they do absolutely nothing? i'll never get it.
|
|
|
Post by wankinginthebushes on Jul 7, 2009 9:30:16 GMT -5
then what's the point of having them? it's a waste of taxpayer's money. why do you pay taxes for them to live this luxurious life when they do absolutely nothing? i'll never get it. They bring more money to our economy than they take.
|
|
|
Post by MEANSTREAK on Jul 7, 2009 19:56:05 GMT -5
then what's the point of having them? it's a waste of taxpayer's money. why do you pay taxes for them to live this luxurious life when they do absolutely nothing? i'll never get it. They bring more money to our economy than they take. haven't heard that before, explain?
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Jul 7, 2009 22:21:25 GMT -5
then what's the point of having them? it's a waste of taxpayer's money. why do you pay taxes for them to live this luxurious life when they do absolutely nothing? i'll never get it. They bring more money to our economy than they take. sorry, but i have a very hard time believing that.
|
|
|
Post by wankinginthebushes on Jul 8, 2009 1:23:45 GMT -5
Last year they cost us £41million. which is about 68p per tax paying person.
They bring more than that in through tourism so they more than pay for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Jul 8, 2009 2:20:03 GMT -5
All I know is that Romney would be handling everything better - the economy, the situations with Iran and NK, the wars in Afghan and Iraq....
I remember hearing Romney's name first in early 2007 and liked what I heard and said to myself "I don't know much about the man, but like what I heard in these few ads and snippets" and kept his name in the back of my mind.....as time went on as we entered the 2008 campaign, I had no doubt that this is the man for the job.
So fuck off Republicans for choosing McCain. And fuck off Republicans, Democrats, and Independents for choosing Obama. Obama only cares about being a rockstar and too worried about his global popularity instead of doing what's best for the US....sometimes doing the unpopular decision is right, and that's something the false prophet will never understand.
He's the next Jimmy Carter - a 1 term liberal president who was only voted in because the public was tired of the GOP and who failed domestically with the economy along with foreign policy. The next Reagan is waiting to take his place, and that would be Mitt Romney. How history repeats itself, eh?
|
|
|
Post by globe on Jul 8, 2009 2:42:35 GMT -5
The next Regan - you mean this guy doesn't know what time of day it is and is gonna start shagging Maggie Thatcher?
|
|