Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/new-royal-yacht-named-after-prince-philip-to-be-commissioned-within-weeks-costing-as-much-as-200m-12292880 Can we have a sweep on why this actually good news? My money is on it's not actually costing anything and it will bring in tourism" Apparently it is Boris’s idea, so it is highly unlikely it will ever get built. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/new-royal-yacht-named-after-prince-philip-to-be-commissioned-within-weeks-costing-as-much-as-200m-12292880 Can we have a sweep on why this actually good news? My money is on it's not actually costing anything and it will bring in tourism Apparently it is Boris’s idea, so it is highly unlikely it will ever get built. " 
They will end up with a pedillo | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/new-royal-yacht-named-after-prince-philip-to-be-commissioned-within-weeks-costing-as-much-as-200m-12292880 Can we have a sweep on why this actually good news? My money is on it's not actually costing anything and it will bring in tourism Apparently it is Boris’s idea, so it is highly unlikely it will ever get built.
They will end up with a pedillo"A Union Jack painted dingy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/new-royal-yacht-named-after-prince-philip-to-be-commissioned-within-weeks-costing-as-much-as-200m-12292880 Can we have a sweep on why this actually good news? My money is on it's not actually costing anything and it will bring in tourism" If it's used for the same reasons as the old one, then I suspect it will be good value for money. I do question the costs though. Seems a bit cheap to me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/new-royal-yacht-named-after-prince-philip-to-be-commissioned-within-weeks-costing-as-much-as-200m-12292880 Can we have a sweep on why this actually good news? My money is on it's not actually costing anything and it will bring in tourism If it's used for the same reasons as the old one, then I suspect it will be good value for money. I do question the costs though. Seems a bit cheap to me." Yep good point. I mean it's not as if we have got anything else to spend the money on..should have done them a gold plated one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/new-royal-yacht-named-after-prince-philip-to-be-commissioned-within-weeks-costing-as-much-as-200m-12292880 Can we have a sweep on why this actually good news? My money is on it's not actually costing anything and it will bring in tourism If it's used for the same reasons as the old one, then I suspect it will be good value for money. I do question the costs though. Seems a bit cheap to me. Yep good point. I mean it's not as if we have got anything else to spend the money on..should have done them a gold plated one." I'm sure parts of it will be. Show off the best of British. Probably not as much gold as there could have been, after the reserves were sold off by labour, but hopefully we have been building them again now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
The fab politics forum never let's you down | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/new-royal-yacht-named-after-prince-philip-to-be-commissioned-within-weeks-costing-as-much-as-200m-12292880 Can we have a sweep on why this actually good news? My money is on it's not actually costing anything and it will bring in tourism" Why not just come up to Edinburgh and refurbish Britannia? LOL | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We shall rule the waves again "Using a £200 million yacht ? I bet the US navy are shitting themselves | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forelock tuggers out in force today. " They know their place | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe we can divert some cash that's currently being wasted on stuff like the NHS, food for starving kids, infrastructure, etc. " Ridiculous suggestion..how will the queen cope without a brand new yacht? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe we can divert some cash that's currently being wasted on stuff like the NHS, food for starving kids, infrastructure, etc. Ridiculous suggestion..how will the queen cope without a brand new yacht?" Tbh, she will be long gone by the time it will be built | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forelock tuggers out in force today. They know their place " Gawd bless em | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This isn't the Politics Forum it's the Kindergarten. Tiresome." Yeah, down with anyone who thinks it's a waste of money making another gold plated boat for the royals to swan around in, while the rest of the country suffers. So much so that anyone who thinks the money could be used elsewhere should be ridiculed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This isn't the Politics Forum it's the Kindergarten. Tiresome. Yeah, down with anyone who thinks it's a waste of money making another gold plated boat for the royals to swan around in, while the rest of the country suffers. So much so that anyone who thinks the money could be used elsewhere should be ridiculed. " Standard. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This isn't the Politics Forum it's the Kindergarten. Tiresome. Yeah, down with anyone who thinks it's a waste of money making another gold plated boat for the royals to swan around in, while the rest of the country suffers. So much so that anyone who thinks the money could be used elsewhere should be ridiculed. " You know the rules, you can’t criticise the government or the Royals otherwise you will be subjected to insults | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
If this goes ahead it will create jobs (saving unemployment benefits and creating income tax) Apprenticeships (giving youngsters a chance to learn a trade) The steel industry more work (they can now insist on British steel, a Brexit benefit) and local services a boost all this while creating a national asset. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having an idea that money could be used in any way this or that isn't what's happening though mostly is it? It's the sniping, name-calling petty commentary isn't it." Yeah, the money is being wasted on this kind of crap and not being spent where it should. Does that mean we should keep schtum about it, and even cheer on the wasted millions? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This isn't the Politics Forum it's the Kindergarten. Tiresome. Yeah, down with anyone who thinks it's a waste of money making another gold plated boat for the royals to swan around in, while the rest of the country suffers. So much so that anyone who thinks the money could be used elsewhere should be ridiculed. You know the rules, you can’t criticise the government or the Royals otherwise you will be subjected to insults " Even if you were a royalist you would question in the light of the economic situation, covid,pay freezes eyc the timing of given the ritual family a £200m yacht. Instead its just applauded without question. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having an idea that money could be used in any way this or that isn't what's happening though mostly is it? It's the sniping, name-calling petty commentary isn't it. Yeah, the money is being wasted on this kind of crap and not being spent where it should. Does that mean we should keep schtum about it, and even cheer on the wasted millions?" If you don’t support this idea your a ‘doom monger’, apparently | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading this thread just goes to show me all you doom and gloom mongers will never be happy and have no idea how investing in a country works.
If this goes ahead it will create jobs (saving unemployment benefits and creating income tax) Apprenticeships (giving youngsters a chance to learn a trade) The steel industry more work (they can now insist on British steel, a Brexit benefit) and local services a boost all this while creating a national asset."But you call anyone who speaks about government nepotism, about the billions they handed to their mates, about brexit, about starving kids as "doom and gloom merchants". That kind of apathy is why this country is in the state it's in, and why a self serving corrupt government keeps getting elected. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having an idea that money could be used in any way this or that isn't what's happening though mostly is it? It's the sniping, name-calling petty commentary isn't it. Yeah, the money is being wasted on this kind of crap and not being spent where it should. Does that mean we should keep schtum about it, and even cheer on the wasted millions? If you don’t support this idea your a ‘doom monger’, apparently " and dont really understand how investment works dont forget that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having an idea that money could be used in any way this or that isn't what's happening though mostly is it? It's the sniping, name-calling petty commentary isn't it. Yeah, the money is being wasted on this kind of crap and not being spent where it should. Does that mean we should keep schtum about it, and even cheer on the wasted millions? If you don’t support this idea your a ‘doom monger’, apparently " Par for the couse. Anyway stop moaning..its a national asset..I cant tell you how much it fills with me the pride that we have kids going hungry but one of the richest families in the world a given a fuck.off yacht. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This isn't the Politics Forum it's the Kindergarten. Tiresome. Yeah, down with anyone who thinks it's a waste of money making another gold plated boat for the royals to swan around in, while the rest of the country suffers. So much so that anyone who thinks the money could be used elsewhere should be ridiculed. You know the rules, you can’t criticise the government or the Royals otherwise you will be subjected to insults Even if you were a royalist you would question in the light of the economic situation, covid,pay freezes eyc the timing of given the ritual family a £200m yacht. Instead its just applauded without question. " Apparently it creates jobs, I am pretty sure spending £200 million on new nurses , building hospitals, schools etc all create new jobs . Instead let’s build a yacht that will hardly get used and is their to ferry the royal family and dignitaries around the world . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This isn't the Politics Forum it's the Kindergarten. Tiresome. Yeah, down with anyone who thinks it's a waste of money making another gold plated boat for the royals to swan around in, while the rest of the country suffers. So much so that anyone who thinks the money could be used elsewhere should be ridiculed. You know the rules, you can’t criticise the government or the Royals otherwise you will be subjected to insults Even if you were a royalist you would question in the light of the economic situation, covid,pay freezes eyc the timing of given the ritual family a £200m yacht. Instead its just applauded without question. Apparently it creates jobs, I am pretty sure spending £200 million on new nurses , building hospitals, schools etc all create new jobs . Instead let’s build a yacht that will hardly get used and is their to ferry the royal family and dignitaries around the world . " Stop talking common sense | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This isn't the Politics Forum it's the Kindergarten. Tiresome. Yeah, down with anyone who thinks it's a waste of money making another gold plated boat for the royals to swan around in, while the rest of the country suffers. So much so that anyone who thinks the money could be used elsewhere should be ridiculed. You know the rules, you can’t criticise the government or the Royals otherwise you will be subjected to insults Even if you were a royalist you would question in the light of the economic situation, covid,pay freezes eyc the timing of given the ritual family a £200m yacht. Instead its just applauded without question. Apparently it creates jobs, I am pretty sure spending £200 million on new nurses , building hospitals, schools etc all create new jobs . Instead let’s build a yacht that will hardly get used and is their to ferry the royal family and dignitaries around the world . " I think you will find they are doing that too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Having an idea that money could be used in any way this or that isn't what's happening though mostly is it? It's the sniping, name-calling petty commentary isn't it. Yeah, the money is being wasted on this kind of crap and not being spent where it should. Does that mean we should keep schtum about it, and even cheer on the wasted millions? If you don’t support this idea your a ‘doom monger’, apparently and dont really understand how investment works dont forget that. "Obviously not, can you explain how this ‘investment’ will benefit the general public ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This isn't the Politics Forum it's the Kindergarten. Tiresome. Yeah, down with anyone who thinks it's a waste of money making another gold plated boat for the royals to swan around in, while the rest of the country suffers. So much so that anyone who thinks the money could be used elsewhere should be ridiculed. You know the rules, you can’t criticise the government or the Royals otherwise you will be subjected to insults Even if you were a royalist you would question in the light of the economic situation, covid,pay freezes eyc the timing of given the ritual family a £200m yacht. Instead its just applauded without question. Apparently it creates jobs, I am pretty sure spending £200 million on new nurses , building hospitals, schools etc all create new jobs . Instead let’s build a yacht that will hardly get used and is their to ferry the royal family and dignitaries around the world . I think you will find they are doing that too. "Give me one reason why we need this yacht ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguing the politics - is actually what the Politics board is for - but it always descends into petty named-calling and sniping." But we constant abuse and told we can't talk about this that or the other. Unless you believe the government, brexit or Boris is infallible you are not welcome on this forum. IE, anyone who questions the wisdom of spunking hundreds of millions on a boat for the royals in the middle of a Pandemic, in the middle of the brexit clusterfuck is a "doom and gloom merchant". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"While you write this on your cobalt filled phone that is mined by 7 year olds in the Congo." I am on a PC | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"While you write this on your cobalt filled phone that is mined by 7 year olds in the Congo. I am on a PC " Tablet or phone or PC same thing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguing the politics - is actually what the Politics board is for - but it always descends into petty named-calling and sniping. But we constant abuse and told we can't talk about this that or the other. Unless you believe the government, brexit or Boris is infallible you are not welcome on this forum. IE, anyone who questions the wisdom of spunking hundreds of millions on a boat for the royals in the middle of a Pandemic, in the middle of the brexit clusterfuck is a "doom and gloom merchant". " well if the cap fits im all for creating jobs in any industry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"While you write this on your cobalt filled phone that is mined by 7 year olds in the Congo. I am on a PC Tablet or phone or PC same thing" Indeed, completely irrelevant though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguing the politics - is actually what the Politics board is for - but it always descends into petty named-calling and sniping. But we constant abuse and told we can't talk about this that or the other. Unless you believe the government, brexit or Boris is infallible you are not welcome on this forum. IE, anyone who questions the wisdom of spunking hundreds of millions on a boat for the royals in the middle of a Pandemic, in the middle of the brexit clusterfuck is a "doom and gloom merchant". well if the cap fits im all for creating jobs in any industry. "Wouldn't your rather the money was spent on creating permanent jobs, and on something that would benefit the citizens of the country, or on those in need? Do the royals need another gold plated boat more than starving kids need food, or NHS needs investment etc? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I long for the day fab introduces a zzz emoji  "See | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I long for the day fab introduces a zzz emoji "I know, I would be using it right now | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguing the politics - is actually what the Politics board is for - but it always descends into petty named-calling and sniping. But we constant abuse and told we can't talk about this that or the other. Unless you believe the government, brexit or Boris is infallible you are not welcome on this forum. IE, anyone who questions the wisdom of spunking hundreds of millions on a boat for the royals in the middle of a Pandemic, in the middle of the brexit clusterfuck is a "doom and gloom merchant". well if the cap fits im all for creating jobs in any industry.
Wouldn't your rather the money was spent on creating permanent jobs, and on something that would benefit the citizens of the country, or on those in need?
Do the royals need another gold plated boat more than starving kids need food, or NHS needs investment etc?"Apparently it will be an ‘asset’ whatever that means | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I long for the day fab introduces a zzz emoji "More ridiculing people who don't want to easy hundreds of millions on a boat for the royals. This place should be for right wingers and intolerant people only maybe? Then you would have the optimal echo chamber with no dissent and no one asking pesky questions about the government, about the establishment, about brexit etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguing the politics - is actually what the Politics board is for - but it always descends into petty named-calling and sniping. But we constant abuse and told we can't talk about this that or the other. Unless you believe the government, brexit or Boris is infallible you are not welcome on this forum. IE, anyone who questions the wisdom of spunking hundreds of millions on a boat for the royals in the middle of a Pandemic, in the middle of the brexit clusterfuck is a "doom and gloom merchant". well if the cap fits im all for creating jobs in any industry.
Wouldn't your rather the money was spent on creating permanent jobs, and on something that would benefit the citizens of the country, or on those in need?
Do the royals need another gold plated boat more than starving kids need food, or NHS needs investment etc?"In America biden is building the economy from bottom up and hugely reinvesting in the economy. Here we are imposing pay freezes on the very people who got us through the pandemic and are giving a family with a obscene wealth a yacht. Makes you proud. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I long for the day fab introduces a zzz emoji
More ridiculing people who don't want to easy hundreds of millions on a boat for the royals.
This place should be for right wingers and intolerant people only maybe? Then you would have the optimal echo chamber with no dissent and no one asking pesky questions about the government, about the establishment, about brexit etc."Who have I ridiculed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguing the politics - is actually what the Politics board is for - but it always descends into petty named-calling and sniping. But we constant abuse and told we can't talk about this that or the other. Unless you believe the government, brexit or Boris is infallible you are not welcome on this forum. IE, anyone who questions the wisdom of spunking hundreds of millions on a boat for the royals in the middle of a Pandemic, in the middle of the brexit clusterfuck is a "doom and gloom merchant". well if the cap fits im all for creating jobs in any industry.
Wouldn't your rather the money was spent on creating permanent jobs, and on something that would benefit the citizens of the country, or on those in need?
Do the royals need another gold plated boat more than starving kids need food, or NHS needs investment etc?"The royal yacht belongs to the navy and it will create permeant jobs, the uk shipbuilding industry needs reviving and i find it utterly mind blowing that someone from Liverpool is against reviving cammell laird. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguing the politics - is actually what the Politics board is for - but it always descends into petty named-calling and sniping. But we constant abuse and told we can't talk about this that or the other. Unless you believe the government, brexit or Boris is infallible you are not welcome on this forum. IE, anyone who questions the wisdom of spunking hundreds of millions on a boat for the royals in the middle of a Pandemic, in the middle of the brexit clusterfuck is a "doom and gloom merchant". well if the cap fits im all for creating jobs in any industry.
Wouldn't your rather the money was spent on creating permanent jobs, and on something that would benefit the citizens of the country, or on those in need?
Do the royals need another gold plated boat more than starving kids need food, or NHS needs investment etc?
Apparently it will be an ‘asset’ whatever that means "We can show it off to all those starving countries where are are cutting aid perhaps? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguing the politics - is actually what the Politics board is for - but it always descends into petty named-calling and sniping. But we constant abuse and told we can't talk about this that or the other. Unless you believe the government, brexit or Boris is infallible you are not welcome on this forum. IE, anyone who questions the wisdom of spunking hundreds of millions on a boat for the royals in the middle of a Pandemic, in the middle of the brexit clusterfuck is a "doom and gloom merchant". well if the cap fits im all for creating jobs in any industry.
Wouldn't your rather the money was spent on creating permanent jobs, and on something that would benefit the citizens of the country, or on those in need?
Do the royals need another gold plated boat more than starving kids need food, or NHS needs investment etc?The royal yacht belongs to the navy and it will create permeant jobs, the uk shipbuilding industry needs reviving and i find it utterly mind blowing that someone from Liverpool is against reviving cammell laird."Why do they need this yacht? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic "Another insult , keep them coming | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic "Ive given a few advantages of building it but as usual no one wants to talk about those or an argument against them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic
Another insult , keep them coming "Calling someone pathetic is an insult now? If you feel that's insulting then you really need to get out into the real world a little more | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic Ive given a few advantages of building it but as usual no one wants to talk about those or an argument against them. "There are advantages, the ones benefiting the most will be the people who get to travel on this luxury yacht. £200 million would employ a lot of nurses, social care staff, police etc etc. I will ask again, why do we need this yacht | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic
Another insult , keep them coming
Calling someone pathetic is an insult now?
If you feel that's insulting then you really need to get out into the real world a little more "Yes it is, Pathetic miserably inadequate; of very low standard Straight from the dictionary | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic "Which I got which sort of proved my point. Cutting overseas aid was apparently a difficult decision. Giving nurses a 1% pay freeze was apparently a difficult decision. Giving an obscenely wealthy family a £200m yacht is apparently not Can I ask if they need a yacht so badly,and let's face it who doesn't, can they not make a contribution? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic
Another insult , keep them coming
Calling someone pathetic is an insult now?
If you feel that's insulting then you really need to get out into the real world a little more
Yes it is,
Pathetic
miserably inadequate; of very low standard
Straight from the dictionary "Anyway, have they said who will be able to use this new yacht? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic Ive given a few advantages of building it but as usual no one wants to talk about those or an argument against them.
There are advantages, the ones benefiting the most will be the people who get to travel on this luxury yacht. £200 million would employ a lot of nurses, social care staff, police etc etc. I will ask again, why do we need this yacht "ive just told you shipbuilding needs to be revitalized as does cammell laird and the steel industry what better way to showcase what they can do than build a royal yacht . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic
Which I got which sort of proved my point.
Cutting overseas aid was apparently a difficult decision.
Giving nurses a 1% pay freeze was apparently a difficult decision.
Giving an obscenely wealthy family a £200m yacht is apparently not
Can I ask if they need a yacht so badly,and let's face it who doesn't, can they not make a contribution?"Nah, let’s their subjects pay for it, after all, they really need this new yacht | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic Ive given a few advantages of building it but as usual no one wants to talk about those or an argument against them.
There are advantages, the ones benefiting the most will be the people who get to travel on this luxury yacht. £200 million would employ a lot of nurses, social care staff, police etc etc. I will ask again, why do we need this yacht ive just told you shipbuilding needs to be revitalized as does cammell laird and the steel industry what better way to showcase what they can do than build a royal yacht .
"Where is it being built? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic
Another insult , keep them coming
Calling someone pathetic is an insult now?
If you feel that's insulting then you really need to get out into the real world a little more
Yes it is,
Pathetic
miserably inadequate; of very low standard
Straight from the dictionary
Anyway, have they said who will be able to use this new yacht? "I couldn't care less about the yacht. I care more for the rhetoric in the thread OP. If you oppose something then say so, don't goad people into defending themselves and then blame them for said defence  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic
Another insult , keep them coming
Calling someone pathetic is an insult now?
If you feel that's insulting then you really need to get out into the real world a little more
Yes it is,
Pathetic
miserably inadequate; of very low standard
Straight from the dictionary
Anyway, have they said who will be able to use this new yacht?
I couldn't care less about the yacht. I care more for the rhetoric in the thread OP.
If you oppose something then say so, don't goad people into defending themselves and then blame them for said defence
"Goad? Are people being forced to comment on this thread? That is a pathetic thing to say | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic Ive given a few advantages of building it but as usual no one wants to talk about those or an argument against them.
There are advantages, the ones benefiting the most will be the people who get to travel on this luxury yacht. £200 million would employ a lot of nurses, social care staff, police etc etc. I will ask again, why do we need this yacht ive just told you shipbuilding needs to be revitalized as does cammell laird and the steel industry what better way to showcase what they can do than build a royal yacht .
Where is it being built? "Liverpool is what i read. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic
Another insult , keep them coming
Calling someone pathetic is an insult now?
If you feel that's insulting then you really need to get out into the real world a little more
Yes it is,
Pathetic
miserably inadequate; of very low standard
Straight from the dictionary
Anyway, have they said who will be able to use this new yacht?
I couldn't care less about the yacht. I care more for the rhetoric in the thread OP.
If you oppose something then say so, don't goad people into defending themselves and then blame them for said defence
"You dont care nothing about the subject yet you decided to post in it anyway? The only 'rhetoric 'has been shouts of doom mongers which you have rather predictably chosen to ignore. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic Ive given a few advantages of building it but as usual no one wants to talk about those or an argument against them.
There are advantages, the ones benefiting the most will be the people who get to travel on this luxury yacht. £200 million would employ a lot of nurses, social care staff, police etc etc. I will ask again, why do we need this yacht ive just told you shipbuilding needs to be revitalized as does cammell laird and the steel industry what better way to showcase what they can do than build a royal yacht .
Where is it being built? Liverpool is what i read."I am sure Liverpool would prefer £200 million to be invested in other areas that both create local jobs and build something that benefits local people . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic Ive given a few advantages of building it but as usual no one wants to talk about those or an argument against them.
There are advantages, the ones benefiting the most will be the people who get to travel on this luxury yacht. £200 million would employ a lot of nurses, social care staff, police etc etc. I will ask again, why do we need this yacht ive just told you shipbuilding needs to be revitalized as does cammell laird and the steel industry what better way to showcase what they can do than build a royal yacht .
Where is it being built? Liverpool is what i read.
I am sure Liverpool would prefer £200 million to be invested in other areas that both create local jobs and build something that benefits local people . "Thats good to know you are sure about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic
Another insult , keep them coming
Calling someone pathetic is an insult now?
If you feel that's insulting then you really need to get out into the real world a little more
Yes it is,
Pathetic
miserably inadequate; of very low standard
Straight from the dictionary
Anyway, have they said who will be able to use this new yacht?
I couldn't care less about the yacht. I care more for the rhetoric in the thread OP.
If you oppose something then say so, don't goad people into defending themselves and then blame them for said defence
Goad? Are people being forced to comment on this thread? That is a pathetic thing to say "2 minutes ago you were screaming that the word pathetic is insulting and now you want to direct it towards me? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic
Another insult , keep them coming
Calling someone pathetic is an insult now?
If you feel that's insulting then you really need to get out into the real world a little more
Yes it is,
Pathetic
miserably inadequate; of very low standard
Straight from the dictionary
Anyway, have they said who will be able to use this new yacht?
I couldn't care less about the yacht. I care more for the rhetoric in the thread OP.
If you oppose something then say so, don't goad people into defending themselves and then blame them for said defence
You dont care nothing about the subject yet you decided to post in it anyway?
The only 'rhetoric 'has been shouts of doom mongers which you have rather predictably chosen to ignore."Have you even read your OP? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic
Another insult , keep them coming
Calling someone pathetic is an insult now?
If you feel that's insulting then you really need to get out into the real world a little more
Yes it is,
Pathetic
miserably inadequate; of very low standard
Straight from the dictionary
Anyway, have they said who will be able to use this new yacht?
I couldn't care less about the yacht. I care more for the rhetoric in the thread OP.
If you oppose something then say so, don't goad people into defending themselves and then blame them for said defence
Goad? Are people being forced to comment on this thread? That is a pathetic thing to say
2 minutes ago you were screaming that the word pathetic is insulting and now you want to direct it towards me? "I know, it’s ironic, don’t you think? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic
Another insult , keep them coming
Calling someone pathetic is an insult now?
If you feel that's insulting then you really need to get out into the real world a little more
Yes it is,
Pathetic
miserably inadequate; of very low standard
Straight from the dictionary
Anyway, have they said who will be able to use this new yacht?
I couldn't care less about the yacht. I care more for the rhetoric in the thread OP.
If you oppose something then say so, don't goad people into defending themselves and then blame them for said defence
Goad? Are people being forced to comment on this thread? That is a pathetic thing to say
2 minutes ago you were screaming that the word pathetic is insulting and now you want to direct it towards me?
I know, it’s ironic, don’t you think? "I'm not the one crying that I've been insulted | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all a ridiculous idea anyway. It will take so long to commission and build that by the time of launch, brexit will have led to Scotland leaving the UK. Naming a ship after the Duke of Edinburgh then is as ridiculous as naming it after the Duke of Normandy. " Can’t see anything ridiculous about it, it’s a current title, a current ship (actually two), and also is a reminder about our glorious historic rule: “.....in the Channel Islands the monarch of the United Kingdom is to this day, referred to by the title, "Duke of Normandy".” And the ship: “After WW2 and the liberation of the Channel Islands on the 9th May 1945, (Duke of Normandy) was taken over by the War Department as war reparation, for various duties around the Channel Isles with long spells where she was laid up in St Helier Old Harbour. Considerable repairs to the 375 h.p Deutz diesel engine were carried out at this time. On the 8th September she was sold by a Senior Contract Officer to the States of Jersey to replace their steam tug 'Duke of Normandy', built in 1903. In 1974, she was sold by the States of Jersey and bought by J. Robinson of A.D.Moffat Ltd (or Robertson Marine Services) in Glasgow before being sold the following year to the British Waterways Board where she was used on the Caledonian Canal to tow the gate-lifter barge around. In 1992 she was bought by owners based in Crinan, Scotland, and then in 2018, having been sold to a further private owner, she relocated to the River Weaver. “ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic Ive given a few advantages of building it but as usual no one wants to talk about those or an argument against them.
There are advantages, the ones benefiting the most will be the people who get to travel on this luxury yacht. £200 million would employ a lot of nurses, social care staff, police etc etc. I will ask again, why do we need this yacht ive just told you shipbuilding needs to be revitalized as does cammell laird and the steel industry what better way to showcase what they can do than build a royal yacht .
Where is it being built? Liverpool is what i read.
I am sure Liverpool would prefer £200 million to be invested in other areas that both create local jobs and build something that benefits local people . Thats good to know you are sure about it. "I can’t be sure, maybe Liverpool do want to build a mega yacht that will leave Liverpool and be used by the royal family instead of something that stays in the city and benefits local people . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic
Another insult , keep them coming
Calling someone pathetic is an insult now?
If you feel that's insulting then you really need to get out into the real world a little more
Yes it is,
Pathetic
miserably inadequate; of very low standard
Straight from the dictionary
Anyway, have they said who will be able to use this new yacht?
I couldn't care less about the yacht. I care more for the rhetoric in the thread OP.
If you oppose something then say so, don't goad people into defending themselves and then blame them for said defence
Goad? Are people being forced to comment on this thread? That is a pathetic thing to say
2 minutes ago you were screaming that the word pathetic is insulting and now you want to direct it towards me?
I know, it’s ironic, don’t you think?
I'm not the one crying that I've been insulted "Crying? What a pathetic thing to say | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all a ridiculous idea anyway. It will take so long to commission and build that by the time of launch, brexit will have led to Scotland leaving the UK. Naming a ship after the Duke of Edinburgh then is as ridiculous as naming it after the Duke of Normandy. Can’t see anything ridiculous about it, it’s a current title, a current ship (actually two), and also is a reminder about our glorious historic rule: “.....in the Channel Islands the monarch of the United Kingdom is to this day, referred to by the title, "Duke of Normandy".” And the ship: “After WW2 and the liberation of the Channel Islands on the 9th May 1945, (Duke of Normandy) was taken over by the War Department as war reparation, for various duties around the Channel Isles with long spells where she was laid up in St Helier Old Harbour. Considerable repairs to the 375 h.p Deutz diesel engine were carried out at this time. On the 8th September she was sold by a Senior Contract Officer to the States of Jersey to replace their steam tug 'Duke of Normandy', built in 1903. In 1974, she was sold by the States of Jersey and bought by J. Robinson of A.D.Moffat Ltd (or Robertson Marine Services) in Glasgow before being sold the following year to the British Waterways Board where she was used on the Caledonian Canal to tow the gate-lifter barge around. In 1992 she was bought by owners based in Crinan, Scotland, and then in 2018, having been sold to a further private owner, she relocated to the River Weaver. “" Riviting stuff | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all a ridiculous idea anyway. It will take so long to commission and build that by the time of launch, brexit will have led to Scotland leaving the UK. Naming a ship after the Duke of Edinburgh then is as ridiculous as naming it after the Duke of Normandy. Can’t see anything ridiculous about it, it’s a current title, a current ship (actually two), and also is a reminder about our glorious historic rule: “.....in the Channel Islands the monarch of the United Kingdom is to this day, referred to by the title, "Duke of Normandy".” And the ship: “After WW2 and the liberation of the Channel Islands on the 9th May 1945, (Duke of Normandy) was taken over by the War Department as war reparation, for various duties around the Channel Isles with long spells where she was laid up in St Helier Old Harbour. Considerable repairs to the 375 h.p Deutz diesel engine were carried out at this time. On the 8th September she was sold by a Senior Contract Officer to the States of Jersey to replace their steam tug 'Duke of Normandy', built in 1903. In 1974, she was sold by the States of Jersey and bought by J. Robinson of A.D.Moffat Ltd (or Robertson Marine Services) in Glasgow before being sold the following year to the British Waterways Board where she was used on the Caledonian Canal to tow the gate-lifter barge around. In 1992 she was bought by owners based in Crinan, Scotland, and then in 2018, having been sold to a further private owner, she relocated to the River Weaver. “ Riviting stuff " Nautical pun? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all a ridiculous idea anyway. It will take so long to commission and build that by the time of launch, brexit will have led to Scotland leaving the UK. Naming a ship after the Duke of Edinburgh then is as ridiculous as naming it after the Duke of Normandy. Can’t see anything ridiculous about it, it’s a current title, a current ship (actually two), and also is a reminder about our glorious historic rule: “.....in the Channel Islands the monarch of the United Kingdom is to this day, referred to by the title, "Duke of Normandy".” And the ship: “After WW2 and the liberation of the Channel Islands on the 9th May 1945, (Duke of Normandy) was taken over by the War Department as war reparation, for various duties around the Channel Isles with long spells where she was laid up in St Helier Old Harbour. Considerable repairs to the 375 h.p Deutz diesel engine were carried out at this time. On the 8th September she was sold by a Senior Contract Officer to the States of Jersey to replace their steam tug 'Duke of Normandy', built in 1903. In 1974, she was sold by the States of Jersey and bought by J. Robinson of A.D.Moffat Ltd (or Robertson Marine Services) in Glasgow before being sold the following year to the British Waterways Board where she was used on the Caledonian Canal to tow the gate-lifter barge around. In 1992 she was bought by owners based in Crinan, Scotland, and then in 2018, having been sold to a further private owner, she relocated to the River Weaver. “ Riviting stuff Nautical pun?" Completely unintentional. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all a ridiculous idea anyway. It will take so long to commission and build that by the time of launch, brexit will have led to Scotland leaving the UK. Naming a ship after the Duke of Edinburgh then is as ridiculous as naming it after the Duke of Normandy. Can’t see anything ridiculous about it, it’s a current title, a current ship (actually two), and also is a reminder about our glorious historic rule: “.....in the Channel Islands the monarch of the United Kingdom is to this day, referred to by the title, "Duke of Normandy".” And the ship: “After WW2 and the liberation of the Channel Islands on the 9th May 1945, (Duke of Normandy) was taken over by the War Department as war reparation, for various duties around the Channel Isles with long spells where she was laid up in St Helier Old Harbour. Considerable repairs to the 375 h.p Deutz diesel engine were carried out at this time. On the 8th September she was sold by a Senior Contract Officer to the States of Jersey to replace their steam tug 'Duke of Normandy', built in 1903. In 1974, she was sold by the States of Jersey and bought by J. Robinson of A.D.Moffat Ltd (or Robertson Marine Services) in Glasgow before being sold the following year to the British Waterways Board where she was used on the Caledonian Canal to tow the gate-lifter barge around. In 1992 she was bought by owners based in Crinan, Scotland, and then in 2018, having been sold to a further private owner, she relocated to the River Weaver. “ Riviting stuff " Quite educational really | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic
Another insult , keep them coming
Calling someone pathetic is an insult now?
If you feel that's insulting then you really need to get out into the real world a little more
Yes it is,
Pathetic
miserably inadequate; of very low standard
Straight from the dictionary
Anyway, have they said who will be able to use this new yacht?
I couldn't care less about the yacht. I care more for the rhetoric in the thread OP.
If you oppose something then say so, don't goad people into defending themselves and then blame them for said defence
Goad? Are people being forced to comment on this thread? That is a pathetic thing to say
2 minutes ago you were screaming that the word pathetic is insulting and now you want to direct it towards me?
I know, it’s ironic, don’t you think?
I'm not the one crying that I've been insulted
Crying? What a pathetic thing to say "I've told you before about your playground arguing style. It doesn't do you any favours  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This isn't the Politics Forum it's the Kindergarten. Tiresome." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguing the politics - is actually what the Politics board is for - but it always descends into petty named-calling and sniping. But we constant abuse and told we can't talk about this that or the other. Unless you believe the government, brexit or Boris is infallible you are not welcome on this forum." As someone who is pretty new to this forum in reality and isnt an ideologue. I would say that statement is extremely wrong You being one of the worst ideologues i have seen makes it even more laughable | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So many people spouting their usual rhetoric that can't see beyond the word "Royal'! Their ignorance of the subject, like many of the subjects on these forums is literally laughable. Then are so obviously coloured by they're beliefs they actually have little or no idea what the yacht is actually used for. But don't let that get in the way!" Why can they can not contribute themselves? Are they a little strapped for cash? Considering the nhs Is now in dire straits considering the backlog, wouldnt that 200m be better spent on the new hospitals alex promised? No sniggering at the back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So many people spouting their usual rhetoric that can't see beyond the word "Royal'! Their ignorance of the subject, like many of the subjects on these forums is literally laughable. Then are so obviously coloured by they're beliefs they actually have little or no idea what the yacht is actually used for. But don't let that get in the way! Why can they can not contribute themselves? Are they a little strapped for cash? Considering the nhs Is now in dire straits considering the backlog, wouldnt that 200m be better spent on the new hospitals alex promised? No sniggering at the back." If you read my post you will know why. Can't hear any sniggering, just laughter. From the front. We all know who sits at the back! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguing the politics - is actually what the Politics board is for - but it always descends into petty named-calling and sniping. But we constant abuse and told we can't talk about this that or the other. Unless you believe the government, brexit or Boris is infallible you are not welcome on this forum. As someone who is pretty new to this forum in reality and isnt an ideologue. I would say that statement is extremely wrong You being one of the worst ideologues i have seen makes it even more laughable" Interesting. What are my ideologies? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all a ridiculous idea anyway. It will take so long to commission and build that by the time of launch, brexit will have led to Scotland leaving the UK. Naming a ship after the Duke of Edinburgh then is as ridiculous as naming it after the Duke of Normandy. Can’t see anything ridiculous about it, it’s a current title, a current ship (actually two), and also is a reminder about our glorious historic rule: “.....in the Channel Islands the monarch of the United Kingdom is to this day, referred to by the title, "Duke of Normandy".” And the ship: “After WW2 and the liberation of the Channel Islands on the 9th May 1945, (Duke of Normandy) was taken over by the War Department as war reparation, for various duties around the Channel Isles with long spells where she was laid up in St Helier Old Harbour. Considerable repairs to the 375 h.p Deutz diesel engine were carried out at this time. On the 8th September she was sold by a Senior Contract Officer to the States of Jersey to replace their steam tug 'Duke of Normandy', built in 1903. In 1974, she was sold by the States of Jersey and bought by J. Robinson of A.D.Moffat Ltd (or Robertson Marine Services) in Glasgow before being sold the following year to the British Waterways Board where she was used on the Caledonian Canal to tow the gate-lifter barge around. In 1992 she was bought by owners based in Crinan, Scotland, and then in 2018, having been sold to a further private owner, she relocated to the River Weaver. “ Riviting stuff " I was talking to Commodore Porters-Smyth of the Royal Yacht Squadron about this ship the other day in fact. Unusual forecastle stretcher in front of the leeward tally sheet. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/new-royal-yacht-named-after-prince-philip-to-be-commissioned-within-weeks-costing-as-much-as-200m-12292880 Can we have a sweep on why this actually good news? My money is on it's not actually costing anything and it will bring in tourism" How would it compare to using aircraft - environmental wise? Could be better in that respect | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguing the politics - is actually what the Politics board is for - but it always descends into petty named-calling and sniping. But we constant abuse and told we can't talk about this that or the other. Unless you believe the government, brexit or Boris is infallible you are not welcome on this forum. As someone who is pretty new to this forum in reality and isnt an ideologue. I would say that statement is extremely wrong You being one of the worst ideologues i have seen makes it even more laughable Interesting. What are my ideologies?" Come off it, I could easly play left wing bingo with your posts. I know what you will type about a certain subject before you do | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find this thread quite bizarre.! A new Royal yacht that would be in service maybe 40 to 50 years promoting Great Britain at a cost of £200M. The usual suspects saying the money could be spent better elsewhere are the same ones who were happy the UK were sending more than £200M a week to the EU.! For the cost of less than a week's EU membership and having a mobile platform to promote Great Britain across the globe for the next 40 years I think it would be worth it." Because that's common sense. Which, sadly seems to be lacking. That and ignorance of the subject in hand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Arguing the politics - is actually what the Politics board is for - but it always descends into petty named-calling and sniping. But we constant abuse and told we can't talk about this that or the other. Unless you believe the government, brexit or Boris is infallible you are not welcome on this forum. As someone who is pretty new to this forum in reality and isnt an ideologue. I would say that statement is extremely wrong You being one of the worst ideologues i have seen makes it even more laughable Interesting. What are my ideologies? Come off it, I could easly play left wing bingo with your posts. I know what you will type about a certain subject before you do" Amazing. So you stereotyping me as "leftwing" is supposed to demonstrate that I am ideological. Meanwhile people are defending wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on a boat, while we're in the middle of a Pandemic and the brexit clusterfuck. I think maybe you need to look in the mirror before you fling this kind of mud around. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find this thread quite bizarre.! A new Royal yacht that would be in service maybe 40 to 50 years promoting Great Britain at a cost of £200M. The usual suspects saying the money could be spent better elsewhere are the same ones who were happy the UK were sending more than £200M a week to the EU.! For the cost of less than a week's EU membership and having a mobile platform to promote Great Britain across the globe for the next 40 years I think it would be worth it." Its absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find this thread quite bizarre.! A new Royal yacht that would be in service maybe 40 to 50 years promoting Great Britain at a cost of £200M. The usual suspects saying the money could be spent better elsewhere are the same ones who were happy the UK were sending more than £200M a week to the EU.! For the cost of less than a week's EU membership and having a mobile platform to promote Great Britain across the globe for the next 40 years I think it would be worth it. Its absolutely nothing to do with Brexit." He wasn't the first to mention Brexit. Go back and look. But his first couple of paragraphs are spot on! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find this thread quite bizarre.! A new Royal yacht that would be in service maybe 40 to 50 years promoting Great Britain at a cost of £200M. The usual suspects saying the money could be spent better elsewhere are the same ones who were happy the UK were sending more than £200M a week to the EU.! For the cost of less than a week's EU membership and having a mobile platform to promote Great Britain across the globe for the next 40 years I think it would be worth it. Its absolutely nothing to do with Brexit." Still less than membership and as the poster said will be with us for more than 40 years. Absolute bargain I say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find this thread quite bizarre.! A new Royal yacht that would be in service maybe 40 to 50 years promoting Great Britain at a cost of £200M. The usual suspects saying the money could be spent better elsewhere are the same ones who were happy the UK were sending more than £200M a week to the EU.! For the cost of less than a week's EU membership and having a mobile platform to promote Great Britain across the globe for the next 40 years I think it would be worth it. Its absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. He wasn't the first to mention Brexit. Go back and look. But his first couple of paragraphs are spot on! " Only if you think yachts are more important than hospitals. I'll ask again.. why can They not contribute themselves? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find this thread quite bizarre.! A new Royal yacht that would be in service maybe 40 to 50 years promoting Great Britain at a cost of £200M. The usual suspects saying the money could be spent better elsewhere are the same ones who were happy the UK were sending more than £200M a week to the EU.! For the cost of less than a week's EU membership and having a mobile platform to promote Great Britain across the globe for the next 40 years I think it would be worth it. Its absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. He wasn't the first to mention Brexit. Go back and look. But his first couple of paragraphs are spot on! Only if you think yachts are more important than hospitals. I'll ask again.. why can They not contribute themselves?" They should contribute . . . but then you can also consider it to be a Company Car. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"9 Years ago. Wonder what a new survey would be." Maybe they do one? Would peoples minds change over the years? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find this thread quite bizarre.! A new Royal yacht that would be in service maybe 40 to 50 years promoting Great Britain at a cost of £200M. The usual suspects saying the money could be spent better elsewhere are the same ones who were happy the UK were sending more than £200M a week to the EU.! For the cost of less than a week's EU membership and having a mobile platform to promote Great Britain across the globe for the next 40 years I think it would be worth it. Its absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. He wasn't the first to mention Brexit. Go back and look. But his first couple of paragraphs are spot on! Only if you think yachts are more important than hospitals. I'll ask again.. why can They not contribute themselves?" Are you saying they won't? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find this thread quite bizarre.! A new Royal yacht that would be in service maybe 40 to 50 years promoting Great Britain at a cost of £200M. The usual suspects saying the money could be spent better elsewhere are the same ones who were happy the UK were sending more than £200M a week to the EU.! For the cost of less than a week's EU membership and having a mobile platform to promote Great Britain across the globe for the next 40 years I think it would be worth it. Its absolutely nothing to do with Brexit." Read the post Lionel. I never mentioned the B word.!! Nice swerve attempt though but clearly didn't work. Question for you though. Would you, A - Have a project built in Liverpool that creates jobs in Liverpool where the said employees can spend their money in the local area of Liverpool thus creating a better life for the people of Liverpool. Or B - Liverpool gets bugger all money because people would rather send it all to Brussels? A or B Lionel. It's an easy question and only needs a one letter answer.!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find this thread quite bizarre.! A new Royal yacht that would be in service maybe 40 to 50 years promoting Great Britain at a cost of £200M. The usual suspects saying the money could be spent better elsewhere are the same ones who were happy the UK were sending more than £200M a week to the EU.! For the cost of less than a week's EU membership and having a mobile platform to promote Great Britain across the globe for the next 40 years I think it would be worth it. Its absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. Read the post Lionel. I never mentioned the B word.!! Nice swerve attempt though but clearly didn't work. Question for you though. Would you, A - Have a project built in Liverpool that creates jobs in Liverpool where the said employees can spend their money in the local area of Liverpool thus creating a better life for the people of Liverpool. Or B - Liverpool gets bugger all money because people would rather send it all to Brussels? A or B Lionel. It's an easy question and only needs a one letter answer.!!" You said the money would be going to the eu but it's not about brexit? Right B has liverpool has recieved millions from the eu in objective 1 status and has created countless more jobs than a yacht for a ridiculously wealthy family to use occasionally would do Obvs ignoring the fact that it's a ridiculous comparison as it's not a binary question The correct answer would be that 200m can be better spent on an overstretched NHS. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find this thread quite bizarre.! A new Royal yacht that would be in service maybe 40 to 50 years promoting Great Britain at a cost of £200M. The usual suspects saying the money could be spent better elsewhere are the same ones who were happy the UK were sending more than £200M a week to the EU.! For the cost of less than a week's EU membership and having a mobile platform to promote Great Britain across the globe for the next 40 years I think it would be worth it. Its absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. He wasn't the first to mention Brexit. Go back and look. But his first couple of paragraphs are spot on! Only if you think yachts are more important than hospitals. I'll ask again.. why can They not contribute themselves? Are you saying they won't?" Are you saying they will? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's all a ridiculous idea anyway. It will take so long to commission and build that by the time of launch, brexit will have led to Scotland leaving the UK. Naming a ship after the Duke of Edinburgh then is as ridiculous as naming it after the Duke of Normandy. Can’t see anything ridiculous about it, it’s a current title, a current ship (actually two), and also is a reminder about our glorious historic rule: “.....in the Channel Islands the monarch of the United Kingdom is to this day, referred to by the title, "Duke of Normandy".” And the ship: “After WW2 and the liberation of the Channel Islands on the 9th May 1945, (Duke of Normandy) was taken over by the War Department as war reparation, for various duties around the Channel Isles with long spells where she was laid up in St Helier Old Harbour. Considerable repairs to the 375 h.p Deutz diesel engine were carried out at this time. On the 8th September she was sold by a Senior Contract Officer to the States of Jersey to replace their steam tug 'Duke of Normandy', built in 1903. In 1974, she was sold by the States of Jersey and bought by J. Robinson of A.D.Moffat Ltd (or Robertson Marine Services) in Glasgow before being sold the following year to the British Waterways Board where she was used on the Caledonian Canal to tow the gate-lifter barge around. In 1992 she was bought by owners based in Crinan, Scotland, and then in 2018, having been sold to a further private owner, she relocated to the River Weaver. “ Riviting stuff I was talking to Commodore Porters-Smyth of the Royal Yacht Squadron about this ship the other day in fact. Unusual forecastle stretcher in front of the leeward tally sheet. " That never happened | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find this thread quite bizarre.! A new Royal yacht that would be in service maybe 40 to 50 years promoting Great Britain at a cost of £200M. The usual suspects saying the money could be spent better elsewhere are the same ones who were happy the UK were sending more than £200M a week to the EU.! For the cost of less than a week's EU membership and having a mobile platform to promote Great Britain across the globe for the next 40 years I think it would be worth it. Its absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. He wasn't the first to mention Brexit. Go back and look. But his first couple of paragraphs are spot on! Only if you think yachts are more important than hospitals. I'll ask again.. why can They not contribute themselves? Are you saying they won't? Are you saying they will?" Answering a question with another question? Come on, Lionel. That sounds familiar. Have you been talking lessons from someone? In answer to your question. Yes I think they will. That's only think, though, because like you, I don't know for certain. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic Ive given a few advantages of building it but as usual no one wants to talk about those or an argument against them. "£200million could be better spent on infrastructure or supporting a new battery factory creating far more jobs long term and spreading wealth. A yacht will create a few jobs in the build then less jobs once finished and will benefit very few long term. It’s vanity and not needed. It’s a waste on an outdated privileged elite who have stifled this country by re-enforcing the class system. Status and class comes first over ability for far too long. Ps I love the Queen and total respect for her work and dignity . It’s the rest I’ve had enough of. Incexxtuous leeches, pedophiles and hangers on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic Ive given a few advantages of building it but as usual no one wants to talk about those or an argument against them.
£200million could be better spent on infrastructure or supporting a new battery factory creating far more jobs long term and spreading wealth.
A yacht will create a few jobs in the build then less jobs once finished and will benefit very few long term. It’s vanity and not needed.
It’s a waste on an outdated privileged elite who have stifled this country by re-enforcing the class system. Status and class comes first over ability for far too long.
Ps I love the Queen and total respect for her work and dignity . It’s the rest I’ve had enough of. Incexxtuous leeches, pedophiles and hangers on. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic Ive given a few advantages of building it but as usual no one wants to talk about those or an argument against them.
£200million could be better spent on infrastructure or supporting a new battery factory creating far more jobs long term and spreading wealth.
A yacht will create a few jobs in the build then less jobs once finished and will benefit very few long term. It’s vanity and not needed.
It’s a waste on an outdated privileged elite who have stifled this country by re-enforcing the class system. Status and class comes first over ability for far too long.
Ps I love the Queen and total respect for her work and dignity . It’s the rest I’ve had enough of. Incexxtuous leeches, pedophiles and hangers on. "To the Tower you must go | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This thread was started by someone who opposes this yacht. Only he didn't say he opposed it. All he was interested in was the 'right-wing' answers to why it's good news. It's pathetic Ive given a few advantages of building it but as usual no one wants to talk about those or an argument against them.
£200million could be better spent on infrastructure or supporting a new battery factory creating far more jobs long term and spreading wealth.
A yacht will create a few jobs in the build then less jobs once finished and will benefit very few long term. It’s vanity and not needed.
It’s a waste on an outdated privileged elite who have stifled this country by re-enforcing the class system. Status and class comes first over ability for far too long.
Ps I love the Queen and total respect for her work and dignity . It’s the rest I’ve had enough of. Incexxtuous leeches, pedophiles and hangers on.
To the Tower you must go "Yes another palace of theirs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs "Not owned by them or her. However. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I find this thread quite bizarre.! A new Royal yacht that would be in service maybe 40 to 50 years promoting Great Britain at a cost of £200M. The usual suspects saying the money could be spent better elsewhere are the same ones who were happy the UK were sending more than £200M a week to the EU.! For the cost of less than a week's EU membership and having a mobile platform to promote Great Britain across the globe for the next 40 years I think it would be worth it. Its absolutely nothing to do with Brexit. He wasn't the first to mention Brexit. Go back and look. But his first couple of paragraphs are spot on! Only if you think yachts are more important than hospitals. I'll ask again.. why can They not contribute themselves? Are you saying they won't? Are you saying they will? Answering a question with another question? Come on, Lionel. That sounds familiar. Have you been talking lessons from someone? In answer to your question. Yes I think they will. That's only think, though, because like you, I don't know for certain." Well they do have a history of making sure they pay their fair share. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However."They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land. Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society . "Said it before we are a nation of serfs. You only need to look at alex..if he was educated in a state school ,would he be sitting where he is now.? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society . "Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better. "Works for Germany Better educated people . Vocational education respected as much as academic . America is failing so definitely not suggesting their system . Money should not talk and it’s a reason why our own parliament is now close to. Dictatorship by default. Parachuted MPs .. total power with only 30% of the vote . It’s bent and needs a clean out . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better. "Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?"Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho"But there werent multi billionaire The idea that only rich people can become president, if we became a republic, is utterly baseless. Have an election, limit how much they can spend. Simple. Amd if you dont like them vote them our after 2 years. Not like the feudal system we have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho
But there werent multi billionaire
The idea that only rich people can become president, if we became a republic, is utterly baseless.
Have an election, limit how much they can spend.
Simple.
Amd if you dont like them vote them our after 2 years.
Not like the feudal system we have."Who said anything about multi-billionaires? I said only the richest. Co's you can imagine random voter Bob Smith from Idaho who works in a steel factory getting onto the ticket can't you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Not like the feudal system we have." Really? You start a business tomorrow and if it succeeds, and you make millions or billions where in your feudal system are you then? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho
But there werent multi billionaire
The idea that only rich people can become president, if we became a republic, is utterly baseless.
Have an election, limit how much they can spend.
Simple.
Amd if you dont like them vote them our after 2 years.
Not like the feudal system we have.
Who said anything about multi-billionaires? I said only the richest.
Co's you can imagine random voter Bob Smith from Idaho who works in a steel factory getting onto the ticket can't you."What's stopping him? A republic appears to work in countless other countries around the world perfectly fine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho
But there werent multi billionaire
The idea that only rich people can become president, if we became a republic, is utterly baseless.
Have an election, limit how much they can spend.
Simple.
Amd if you dont like them vote them our after 2 years.
Not like the feudal system we have.
Who said anything about multi-billionaires? I said only the richest.
Co's you can imagine random voter Bob Smith from Idaho who works in a steel factory getting onto the ticket can't you.
What's stopping him?
A republic appears to work in countless other countries around the world perfectly fine."The fact he has little money. And if ever he succeeds it will only be because he has made a crock load of money or he has been bankrolled with a crock load of money - to which then 'the piper he must pay'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho
But there werent multi billionaire
The idea that only rich people can become president, if we became a republic, is utterly baseless.
Have an election, limit how much they can spend.
Simple.
Amd if you dont like them vote them our after 2 years.
Not like the feudal system we have.
Who said anything about multi-billionaires? I said only the richest.
Co's you can imagine random voter Bob Smith from Idaho who works in a steel factory getting onto the ticket can't you.
What's stopping him?
A republic appears to work in countless other countries around the world perfectly fine.
The fact he has little money. And if ever he succeeds it will only be because he has made a crock load of money or he has been bankrolled with a crock load of money - to which then 'the piper he must pay'.
"Why does anyone have to be bank rolled? Ive just provided 2 recent examples of presidents who were not millionaires. The fact is we would have an actual choice and we wouldn't have to be the suspects if some bizarre weird dysfunctional family through an accident of birth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mr President Macron is worth £24Million and was a hedge fund banker previously." Did the french elect him? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho
But there werent multi billionaire
The idea that only rich people can become president, if we became a republic, is utterly baseless.
Have an election, limit how much they can spend.
Simple.
Amd if you dont like them vote them our after 2 years.
Not like the feudal system we have.
Who said anything about multi-billionaires? I said only the richest.
Co's you can imagine random voter Bob Smith from Idaho who works in a steel factory getting onto the ticket can't you.
What's stopping him?
A republic appears to work in countless other countries around the world perfectly fine.
The fact he has little money. And if ever he succeeds it will only be because he has made a crock load of money or he has been bankrolled with a crock load of money - to which then 'the piper he must pay'.
Why does anyone have to be bank rolled?
Ive just provided 2 recent examples of presidents who were not millionaires.
The fact is we would have an actual choice and we wouldn't have to be the suspects if some bizarre weird dysfunctional family through an accident of birth."Clinton and Clinton are up to their necks in dodgy deals, back scratching, fake charities. Obama will mainly be remembered for his Syrian red lines. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho
But there werent multi billionaire
The idea that only rich people can become president, if we became a republic, is utterly baseless.
Have an election, limit how much they can spend.
Simple.
Amd if you dont like them vote them our after 2 years.
Not like the feudal system we have.
Who said anything about multi-billionaires? I said only the richest.
Co's you can imagine random voter Bob Smith from Idaho who works in a steel factory getting onto the ticket can't you.
What's stopping him?
A republic appears to work in countless other countries around the world perfectly fine.
The fact he has little money. And if ever he succeeds it will only be because he has made a crock load of money or he has been bankrolled with a crock load of money - to which then 'the piper he must pay'.
Why does anyone have to be bank rolled?
Ive just provided 2 recent examples of presidents who were not millionaires.
The fact is we would have an actual choice and we wouldn't have to be the suspects if some bizarre weird dysfunctional family through an accident of birth."Who were Bankrolled by a large political party and donors.. You need to pretty rich in both personal wealth and powerful allies to actually have any chance of becoming a head of state within a Republic, it's been like that in every Republic since Rome | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho
But there werent multi billionaire
The idea that only rich people can become president, if we became a republic, is utterly baseless.
Have an election, limit how much they can spend.
Simple.
Amd if you dont like them vote them our after 2 years.
Not like the feudal system we have.
Who said anything about multi-billionaires? I said only the richest.
Co's you can imagine random voter Bob Smith from Idaho who works in a steel factory getting onto the ticket can't you.
What's stopping him?
A republic appears to work in countless other countries around the world perfectly fine.
The fact he has little money. And if ever he succeeds it will only be because he has made a crock load of money or he has been bankrolled with a crock load of money - to which then 'the piper he must pay'.
Why does anyone have to be bank rolled?
Ive just provided 2 recent examples of presidents who were not millionaires.
The fact is we would have an actual choice and we wouldn't have to be the suspects if some bizarre weird dysfunctional family through an accident of birth.
Who were Bankrolled by a large political party and donors..
You need to pretty rich in both personal wealth and powerful allies to actually have any chance of becoming a head of state within a Republic, it's been like that in every Republic since Rome "So we shouldn't have a republic in case we vote in someone rich.? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho
But there werent multi billionaire
The idea that only rich people can become president, if we became a republic, is utterly baseless.
Have an election, limit how much they can spend.
Simple.
Amd if you dont like them vote them our after 2 years.
Not like the feudal system we have.
Who said anything about multi-billionaires? I said only the richest.
Co's you can imagine random voter Bob Smith from Idaho who works in a steel factory getting onto the ticket can't you.
What's stopping him?
A republic appears to work in countless other countries around the world perfectly fine.
The fact he has little money. And if ever he succeeds it will only be because he has made a crock load of money or he has been bankrolled with a crock load of money - to which then 'the piper he must pay'.
Why does anyone have to be bank rolled?
Ive just provided 2 recent examples of presidents who were not millionaires.
The fact is we would have an actual choice and we wouldn't have to be the suspects if some bizarre weird dysfunctional family through an accident of birth.
Who were Bankrolled by a large political party and donors..
You need to pretty rich in both personal wealth and powerful allies to actually have any chance of becoming a head of state within a Republic, it's been like that in every Republic since Rome
So we shouldn't have a republic in case we vote in someone rich.?"When did I make that statement I personally dont really care, but if I was pushed I would say keep it the way it is due to the long standing history and tradition. You're the one who seems to have a problem with rich people | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"https://news.sky.com/story/new-royal-yacht-named-after-prince-philip-to-be-commissioned-within-weeks-costing-as-much-as-200m-12292880 Can we have a sweep on why this actually good news? My money is on it's not actually costing anything and it will bring in tourism Apparently it is Boris’s idea, so it is highly unlikely it will ever get built. " True another silly idea | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho
But there werent multi billionaire
The idea that only rich people can become president, if we became a republic, is utterly baseless.
Have an election, limit how much they can spend.
Simple.
Amd if you dont like them vote them our after 2 years.
Not like the feudal system we have.
Who said anything about multi-billionaires? I said only the richest.
Co's you can imagine random voter Bob Smith from Idaho who works in a steel factory getting onto the ticket can't you.
What's stopping him?
A republic appears to work in countless other countries around the world perfectly fine.
The fact he has little money. And if ever he succeeds it will only be because he has made a crock load of money or he has been bankrolled with a crock load of money - to which then 'the piper he must pay'.
Why does anyone have to be bank rolled?
Ive just provided 2 recent examples of presidents who were not millionaires.
The fact is we would have an actual choice and we wouldn't have to be the suspects if some bizarre weird dysfunctional family through an accident of birth.
Who were Bankrolled by a large political party and donors..
You need to pretty rich in both personal wealth and powerful allies to actually have any chance of becoming a head of state within a Republic, it's been like that in every Republic since Rome
So we shouldn't have a republic in case we vote in someone rich.?
When did I make that statement
I personally dont really care, but if I was pushed I would say keep it the way it is due to the long standing history and tradition.
You're the one who seems to have a problem with rich people
"Well you may have a point there as I'm the one who has consistently pointed out,on this thread, that the problem with a republic is we may vote in someone rich. The fact that we are governed my millionaires is obviously lost on some people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho
But there werent multi billionaire
The idea that only rich people can become president, if we became a republic, is utterly baseless.
Have an election, limit how much they can spend.
Simple.
Amd if you dont like them vote them our after 2 years.
Not like the feudal system we have.
Who said anything about multi-billionaires? I said only the richest.
Co's you can imagine random voter Bob Smith from Idaho who works in a steel factory getting onto the ticket can't you.
What's stopping him?
A republic appears to work in countless other countries around the world perfectly fine.
The fact he has little money. And if ever he succeeds it will only be because he has made a crock load of money or he has been bankrolled with a crock load of money - to which then 'the piper he must pay'.
Why does anyone have to be bank rolled?
Ive just provided 2 recent examples of presidents who were not millionaires.
The fact is we would have an actual choice and we wouldn't have to be the suspects if some bizarre weird dysfunctional family through an accident of birth.
Who were Bankrolled by a large political party and donors..
You need to pretty rich in both personal wealth and powerful allies to actually have any chance of becoming a head of state within a Republic, it's been like that in every Republic since Rome
So we shouldn't have a republic in case we vote in someone rich.?
When did I make that statement
I personally dont really care, but if I was pushed I would say keep it the way it is due to the long standing history and tradition.
You're the one who seems to have a problem with rich people
Well you may have a point there as I'm the one who has consistently pointed out,on this thread, that the problem with a republic is we may vote in someone rich.
The fact that we are governed my millionaires is obviously lost on some people."People who are wealthy before holding office are not really the problem, people who get wealthy while in office are | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho
But there werent multi billionaire
The idea that only rich people can become president, if we became a republic, is utterly baseless.
Have an election, limit how much they can spend.
Simple.
Amd if you dont like them vote them our after 2 years.
Not like the feudal system we have.
Who said anything about multi-billionaires? I said only the richest.
Co's you can imagine random voter Bob Smith from Idaho who works in a steel factory getting onto the ticket can't you.
What's stopping him?
A republic appears to work in countless other countries around the world perfectly fine.
The fact he has little money. And if ever he succeeds it will only be because he has made a crock load of money or he has been bankrolled with a crock load of money - to which then 'the piper he must pay'.
Why does anyone have to be bank rolled?
Ive just provided 2 recent examples of presidents who were not millionaires.
The fact is we would have an actual choice and we wouldn't have to be the suspects if some bizarre weird dysfunctional family through an accident of birth.
Who were Bankrolled by a large political party and donors..
You need to pretty rich in both personal wealth and powerful allies to actually have any chance of becoming a head of state within a Republic, it's been like that in every Republic since Rome
So we shouldn't have a republic in case we vote in someone rich.?
When did I make that statement
I personally dont really care, but if I was pushed I would say keep it the way it is due to the long standing history and tradition.
You're the one who seems to have a problem with rich people
Well you may have a point there as I'm the one who has consistently pointed out,on this thread, that the problem with a republic is we may vote in someone rich.
The fact that we are governed my millionaires is obviously lost on some people.
People who are wealthy before holding office are not really the problem, people who get wealthy while in office are "Then we have a problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho
But there werent multi billionaire
The idea that only rich people can become president, if we became a republic, is utterly baseless.
Have an election, limit how much they can spend.
Simple.
Amd if you dont like them vote them our after 2 years.
Not like the feudal system we have.
Who said anything about multi-billionaires? I said only the richest.
Co's you can imagine random voter Bob Smith from Idaho who works in a steel factory getting onto the ticket can't you.
What's stopping him?
A republic appears to work in countless other countries around the world perfectly fine.
The fact he has little money. And if ever he succeeds it will only be because he has made a crock load of money or he has been bankrolled with a crock load of money - to which then 'the piper he must pay'.
Why does anyone have to be bank rolled?
Ive just provided 2 recent examples of presidents who were not millionaires.
The fact is we would have an actual choice and we wouldn't have to be the suspects if some bizarre weird dysfunctional family through an accident of birth.
Who were Bankrolled by a large political party and donors..
You need to pretty rich in both personal wealth and powerful allies to actually have any chance of becoming a head of state within a Republic, it's been like that in every Republic since Rome
So we shouldn't have a republic in case we vote in someone rich.?
When did I make that statement
I personally dont really care, but if I was pushed I would say keep it the way it is due to the long standing history and tradition.
You're the one who seems to have a problem with rich people
Well you may have a point there as I'm the one who has consistently pointed out,on this thread, that the problem with a republic is we may vote in someone rich.
The fact that we are governed my millionaires is obviously lost on some people.
People who are wealthy before holding office are not really the problem, people who get wealthy while in office are "Why should being a wealthy person be a bad thing if running for parliament | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho
But there werent multi billionaire
The idea that only rich people can become president, if we became a republic, is utterly baseless.
Have an election, limit how much they can spend.
Simple.
Amd if you dont like them vote them our after 2 years.
Not like the feudal system we have.
Who said anything about multi-billionaires? I said only the richest.
Co's you can imagine random voter Bob Smith from Idaho who works in a steel factory getting onto the ticket can't you.
What's stopping him?
A republic appears to work in countless other countries around the world perfectly fine.
The fact he has little money. And if ever he succeeds it will only be because he has made a crock load of money or he has been bankrolled with a crock load of money - to which then 'the piper he must pay'.
Why does anyone have to be bank rolled?
Ive just provided 2 recent examples of presidents who were not millionaires.
The fact is we would have an actual choice and we wouldn't have to be the suspects if some bizarre weird dysfunctional family through an accident of birth.
Who were Bankrolled by a large political party and donors..
You need to pretty rich in both personal wealth and powerful allies to actually have any chance of becoming a head of state within a Republic, it's been like that in every Republic since Rome
So we shouldn't have a republic in case we vote in someone rich.?
When did I make that statement
I personally dont really care, but if I was pushed I would say keep it the way it is due to the long standing history and tradition.
You're the one who seems to have a problem with rich people
Well you may have a point there as I'm the one who has consistently pointed out,on this thread, that the problem with a republic is we may vote in someone rich.
The fact that we are governed my millionaires is obviously lost on some people.
People who are wealthy before holding office are not really the problem, people who get wealthy while in office are
Why should being a wealthy person be a bad thing if running for parliament"I didnt say it is | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To the Tower you must go Yes another palace of theirs
Not owned by them or her. However.
They don’t own much apart from one of the worlds largest private art collections and great swathes of land.
Why one family should be able to use a large range of stately homes while we have bad schools and homelessness is an example of our backward views as a society .
Then let's have a Republic. Where only the richest would be able to become President. That will change things for the better.
Where clinton and obama ridiculously wealthy?
Yes. Compared to random voter Bob Smith in Idaho
But there werent multi billionaire
The idea that only rich people can become president, if we became a republic, is utterly baseless.
Have an election, limit how much they can spend.
Simple.
Amd if you dont like them vote them our after 2 years.
Not like the feudal system we have.
Who said anything about multi-billionaires? I said only the richest.
Co's you can imagine random voter Bob Smith from Idaho who works in a steel factory getting onto the ticket can't you.
What's stopping him?
A republic appears to work in countless other countries around the world perfectly fine.
The fact he has little money. And if ever he succeeds it will only be because he has made a crock load of money or he has been bankrolled with a crock load of money - to which then 'the piper he must pay'.
Why does anyone have to be bank rolled?
Ive just provided 2 recent examples of presidents who were not millionaires.
The fact is we would have an actual choice and we wouldn't have to be the suspects if some bizarre weird dysfunctional family through an accident of birth."The Obama's were worth $1.3 million before entering the Whitehouse - They also had $715,000 in Investment funding too. This doesn't include being bankrolled by big investors to get on a ticket. You may perhaps need to read up on how US politics works. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the royal parasites must have a gold plated boat because the political system in the USA is broken. Makes sense. " You need to follow the discussion however to keep up with the discussion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the royal parasites must have a gold plated boat because the political system in the USA is broken. Makes sense. " Apparently the argument seems to be you cant have a republic because someone rich may they elected. Yeah me neither. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS managed it's Budget better they would be able to pay all it's own needs and buy 3 yachts. Don't get me started on "food banks and starving children" whilst parents, those people responsible for said children are buying scratch cards & booze." Tories gonna tory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS managed it's Budget better they would be able to pay all it's own needs and buy 3 yachts. Don't get me started on "food banks and starving children" whilst parents, those people responsible for said children are buying scratch cards & booze. Tories gonna tory." Until socialist can come up with an alternative that works afraid there ain't much option | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was just summing up your excellent logical argument. "It was too, wasn't it? TY. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the royal parasites must have a gold plated boat because the political system in the USA is broken. Makes sense. Apparently the argument seems to be you cant have a republic because someone rich may they elected. Yeah me neither." O Dear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS managed it's Budget better they would be able to pay all it's own needs and buy 3 yachts. Don't get me started on "food banks and starving children" whilst parents, those people responsible for said children are buying scratch cards & booze. Tories gonna tory. Until socialist can come up with an alternative that works afraid there ain't much option" You believe every person who uses a food bank wastes all their money on scratch cards and booze. I think I'll just leave that there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS managed it's Budget better they would be able to pay all it's own needs and buy 3 yachts. Don't get me started on "food banks and starving children" whilst parents, those people responsible for said children are buying scratch cards & booze. Tories gonna tory. Until socialist can come up with an alternative that works afraid there ain't much option You believe every person who uses a food bank wastes all their money on scratch cards and booze. I think I'll just leave that there. " I see people are still seeing words never written, just to try and score points | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS managed it's Budget better they would be able to pay all it's own needs and buy 3 yachts. Don't get me started on "food banks and starving children" whilst parents, those people responsible for said children are buying scratch cards & booze. Tories gonna tory. Until socialist can come up with an alternative that works afraid there ain't much option You believe every person who uses a food bank wastes all their money on scratch cards and booze. I think I'll just leave that there. I see people are still seeing words never written, just to try and score points" I love it when people say something like say..those people responsible for said children are buying scratch cards and booze..and then completely deny saying it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So in summary, we have to buy the scroungers a gold plated boat because the political system of the USA is broken and if we don't we will end up with a dictator, who will spend all our money on palaces and gold plated boats. Maybe stick to being fabs answer to indeed. "Sounds about right Apparently we dont want a republic in case someone rich wins.. meanwhile we are governed by the likes of Alex and reece mogg. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the NHS managed it's Budget better they would be able to pay all it's own needs and buy 3 yachts. Don't get me started on "food banks and starving children" whilst parents, those people responsible for said children are buying scratch cards & booze. Tories gonna tory. Until socialist can come up with an alternative that works afraid there ain't much option You believe every person who uses a food bank wastes all their money on scratch cards and booze. I think I'll just leave that there. I see people are still seeing words never written, just to try and score points I love it when people say something like say..those people responsible for said children are buying scratch cards and booze..and then completely deny saying it." Ah now i understand you're saying none of them buy booze and scratch cards, then you would be wrong of course. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"perhaps it would be good for madge to use it for x number of weeks and the other y number of weeks could see it rented out under a time share scheme to recoup the wasted money. "Maybe it could be used to house the homeless? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
