Page 2 of 2
Re: vaguely contreversial policy
Posted: 03 May 2010, 19:48
by Skilgannon
Hey! Don't label the rest of Britain under the bigoted, racist twats that are the BNP. They represent a minority, and are no better than the KKK.
Re: vaguely contreversial policy
Posted: 04 May 2010, 02:23
by SPAZ ROFELZ
But to be fair, Englandshire is a *loving* racist dickhole who have their interests based on whatever money america has to offer. Not saying that the irish economy or any of our "ways and means" are decent, sure we spent all your money (the EU) on building *loving* roads. Good luck getting the money back, fucktards.
Re: vaguely contreversial policy
Posted: 04 May 2010, 04:50
by Jima B
Skilgannon wrote:Hey! Don't label the rest of Britain under the bigoted, racist twats that are the BNP. They represent a minority, and are no better than the KKK.
The BNP are attacked more than they attack. They're constantly discriminated against, and compared to the nazis and KKK.
The BNP's policies include "Relocation grants" of up to 50,000 to be offered to immigrants, to encourage leaving the country. They have NOT committed mass murder, or preached it. Don't be disolusioned. They aren't good people, but they aren't murderers either.
Also, I do dislike Europe. I wouldn't care so much without the unified currency, that's pretty annoying.
Money isn't everything, and we can have the militairy allience and nice trade system without the vast political ties.
Plus, centralization is bad, everyone knows that. D:
Re: vaguely contreversial policy
Posted: 04 May 2010, 16:39
by ~[FGS]Próphèt~
Jima B wrote:Plus, centralization is bad, everyone knows that. D:
Ever thought about centralizing to fight centralization? ;P
Re: vaguely contreversial policy
Posted: 04 May 2010, 17:43
by ~][FGS][Nobody~
SPAZ ROFELZ wrote:But to be fair, Englandshire is a *loving* racist dickhole who have their interests based on whatever money america has to offer. Not saying that the irish economy or any of our "ways and means" are decent, sure we spent all your money (the EU) on building *loving* roads. Good luck getting the money back, fucktards.
You roads will simply be shipped back.
You'll drive of field paths in future, simple as that!

Re: vaguely contreversial policy
Posted: 04 May 2010, 20:46
by Skilgannon
Jima B wrote:I wouldn't care so much without the unified currency, that's pretty annoying.
There's no difference between using the
Re: vaguely contreversial policy
Posted: 04 May 2010, 21:11
by ~][FGS][Nobody~
What the f
Re: vaguely contreversial policy
Posted: 05 May 2010, 17:47
by SPAZ ROFELZ
1,000.00 GBP
=
1,175.14 EUR
The UK's economy is metabolic end product enough without having to make it's money worth metabolic end product all
Re: vaguely contreversial policy
Posted: 07 May 2010, 04:26
by Jima B
To be honest, I don't care.
I voted UKIP and I'm happy.
They're better than the BNP because less people hate them.
I'm all for supporting my nationality. I don't wanna be some generic european, I wanna be British, however metabolic end product that may be. *love* it, I'm happy enough with it all.
Whoever hates publicans less is best.
Re: vaguely contreversial policy
Posted: 07 May 2010, 13:06
by SPAZ ROFELZ
Now there is a Spaz Parliament.
Aka Hung Parliament, see what i did there?
Re: vaguely contreversial policy
Posted: 07 May 2010, 13:27
by ~[FGS]SaSQuATcH~
I heard that the results were weird right?
Re: vaguely contreversial policy
Posted: 07 May 2010, 14:00
by Jima B
~[FGS]SaSQuATcH~ wrote:I heard that the results were weird right?
They where probably the most predictable and least weird results in a long time.
I'm just happy and suprised the lib dems didn't get more votes.
All in all, basically the Tories won and should lead our country weather we like it or not, but something shitty in the rules says that it's not that simple because labour don't have too much less votes and stuff. Now instead of being led by people we voted for, we have to go through some shitty process that's supposedly something like the politicians equivalent of running around like headless chickens or something first, and could very well not end up with the tories in power after it all.
Also, lots of people couldn't vote for some reason or other, so that'll be interesting to hear about.
Re: vaguely contreversial policy
Posted: 07 May 2010, 21:49
by Skilgannon
Jima B wrote:~[FGS]SaSQuATcH~ wrote:I heard that the results were weird right?
They where probably the most predictable and least weird results in a long time.
I'm just happy and suprised the lib dems didn't get more votes.
All in all, basically the Tories won and should lead our country weather we like it or not, but something shitty in the rules says that it's not that simple because labour don't have too much less votes and stuff. Now instead of being led by people we voted for, we have to go through some shitty process that's supposedly something like the politicians equivalent of running around like headless chickens or something first, and could very well not end up with the tories in power after it all.
Also, lots of people couldn't vote for some reason or other, so that'll be interesting to hear about.
GOOD! Tories'll *love* this country worse than it already is. They're rich cunts only interested in making themselves even richer cunts, and they couldn't give a toss who they *love* over while doing it. Including the entire country.
Re: vaguely contreversial policy
Posted: 08 May 2010, 02:56
by Jima B
Skilgannon wrote:Jima B wrote:~[FGS]SaSQuATcH~ wrote:I heard that the results were weird right?
They where probably the most predictable and least weird results in a long time.
I'm just happy and suprised the lib dems didn't get more votes.
All in all, basically the Tories won and should lead our country weather we like it or not, but something shitty in the rules says that it's not that simple because labour don't have too much less votes and stuff. Now instead of being led by people we voted for, we have to go through some shitty process that's supposedly something like the politicians equivalent of running around like headless chickens or something first, and could very well not end up with the tories in power after it all.
Also, lots of people couldn't vote for some reason or other, so that'll be interesting to hear about.
GOOD! Tories'll *love* this country worse than it already is. They're rich cunts only interested in making themselves even richer cunts, and they couldn't give a toss who they *love* over while doing it. Including the entire country.
Yeah. But the Nick Clegg is actually much more of a toff than cameron. I'm interested, because the tories don't look too bad on the surface.
That said, the main reason my town is metabolic end product is because of the tories. It was a coal mining town, and as the pits closed, industry and unemployment and the towns economy collapsed, and the rail station was shut down and removed. Not a trace of either left.
Also, labour has repeatedly fucked the NHS over, despite it being brilliant in my area. Hospital closures and the like, and higher dentist fees... waiting lists still don't really exist though. They planned to *love* the education system over too, merging all the comprehensive schools, and no doubt firing many teachers in the process, and they did plan to cause a lot of cuts in my college too.
So although I'm naturally opposed to the lib dems, they are the only ones who haven't fucked anything up before. This constitiuency will probably remain labour anyway.
Re: vaguely contreversial policy
Posted: 08 May 2010, 16:43
by Skilgannon
Pff, they're all bad as each other anyway, doesn't really matter who you vote for. Nice to see Green's got their first ever seat though.