chris1961 Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 WHY CAN'T POLITICIANS JUST TELL THE TRUTH SO WE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION WHAT ARE THEY SO SCARED ABOUT ITS THE LIES THAT REALLY GETS MY BLOOD BOILING HOW CAN WE TRUST THEM WHEN THEY CAN'T EVEN TELL THE TRUTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 WHY CAN'T POLITICIANS JUST TELL THE TRUTH SO WE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION WHAT ARE THEY SO SCARED ABOUT ITS THE LIES THAT REALLY GETS MY BLOOD BOILING HOW CAN WE TRUST THEM WHEN THEY CAN'T EVEN TELL THE TRUTHSimply put and spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxo Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 WHY CAN'T POLITICIANS JUST TELL THE TRUTH SO WE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION WHAT ARE THEY SO SCARED ABOUT ITS THE LIES THAT REALLY GETS MY BLOOD BOILING HOW CAN WE TRUST THEM WHEN THEY CAN'T EVEN TELL THE TRUTH These days a politician is judged by how well he/she can mask the truth to put a favourable spin on his/her own party. In the old days we had proper politicians. Not saying that they were all squeaky clean but most of them put the country first. If they were caught out there wasn't any need for enquiries. They would tender their resignation out of shame which is something the mob we have now know nothing about. Get rid of party politics. Let each man/woman tender a C.V and elect the best man/woman for the job on the strength of that. Let him build a cabinet based on their C.V knowing that in 3/4 years time he'll be kicked out if he doesn't perform well just the same as the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodp Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 WHY CAN'T POLITICIANS JUST TELL THE TRUTH SO WE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION WHAT ARE THEY SO SCARED ABOUT ITS THE LIES THAT REALLY GETS MY BLOOD BOILING HOW CAN WE TRUST THEM WHEN THEY CAN'T EVEN TELL THE TRUTH Well make sure you don't vote to keep another tier in power, we've got enough of our own without having to put up with hundreds from overseas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secretagentmole Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) Rubbish. You forgot about the English Channel and the fact the RAF had already defeated the Luftwaffe. Without air support their landing fleet would have been obliterated. No we did not, watch the Winkle Brown documentary, at the end of the Battle of Britain the weekly losses incurred by the Luftwaffe were less than those incurred by the allies, Hitler ordered the recall of all Fighter squadrons to start Operation Barbarossa. We were saved by Hitler switching his target from the UK to the USSR! https://youtu.be/szten4iypCM?t=2117 Just to help you find it like. I don't usually agree with Chrisjh, but on this occasion he is right! Edited February 27, 2016 by secretagentmole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) Just to help you find it like. I don't usually agree with Chrisjh, but on this occasion he is right! I'm afraid history disputes Chrisjh's post. Hitler postponed 'Operation Sealion' on Sept 17th 1940, after the Luftwaffe had suffered massive losses two days earlier. It was nearly a month later, on 12th October 1940 that Hitler diverted forces to the Eastern Front. Edit to say the US didn't enter the war until Dec 1941, so had no bearing on the Nazi plans to invade Britain. Simply put, it was the RAF and radar that did for Fritz. Edited February 27, 2016 by poontang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 I'm afraid history disputes Chrisjh's post. Hitler postponed 'Operation Sealion' on Sept 17th 1940, after the Luftwaffe had suffered massive losses two days earlier. It was nearly a month later, on 12th October 1940 that Hitler diverted forces to the Eastern Front. Edit to say the US didn't enter the war until Dec 1941, so had no bearing on the Nazi plans to invade Britain. Simply put, it was the RAF and radar that did for Fritz. Quite a masterstroke invading Russia in winter don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 No we did not, watch the Winkle Brown documentary, at the end of the Battle of Britain the weekly losses incurred by the Luftwaffe were less than those incurred by the allies, Hitler ordered the recall of all Fighter squadrons to start Operation Barbarossa. We were saved by Hitler switching his target from the UK to the USSR! https://youtu.be/szten4iypCM?t=2117 Just to help you find it like. I don't usually agree with Chrisjh, but on this occasion he is right! correct me if im wrong......what you say is right...but one of the factors that made adolf decide to switch his attention from blighty to the russian bear was that the "advisors" to adolf assumed from past imformation that a squadron was the same number of planes as a german squadron...where infact it was in reality HALF the number of a german squadron............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secretagentmole Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 correct me if im wrong......what you say is right...but one of the factors that made adolf decide to switch his attention from blighty to the russian bear was that the "advisors" to adolf assumed from past imformation that a squadron was the same number of planes as a german squadron...where infact it was in reality HALF the number of a german squadron............. Sorry but squadrons on both sides usually comprised between 12-16 aircraft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secretagentmole Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 I'm afraid history disputes Chrisjh's post. Hitler postponed 'Operation Sealion' on Sept 17th 1940, after the Luftwaffe had suffered massive losses two days earlier. It was nearly a month later, on 12th October 1940 that Hitler diverted forces to the Eastern Front. Edit to say the US didn't enter the war until Dec 1941, so had no bearing on the Nazi plans to invade Britain. Simply put, it was the RAF and radar that did for Fritz. I would rather rely on Winkle Brown and Goerring, 2 people who were there at the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Wow, this is diverging from a sensible debate to who-did-what-to-sausage-eating-fritz isn't it? I suppose it was inevitable really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 They started it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootingEgg Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) So now the G20 are saying it will be a 'shock' to the global economy.. And the "ins" will say its a bad thing to get out and the outs will say lets get out.... The word SHOCK is neither good or bad.... But each group will use it and spin it in their favour. I personally think yes it will be a shock and guess what, it could go either way.... Its as simple as that. Edited February 27, 2016 by ShootingEgg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Hardly a shock when there are two years to negotiate the exit should the vote go that way. As Farage said earlier; Old chums helping each other out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 In fairness, I think they meant a shock to the global economy. Which it would be! I don't think they meant 'surprise'!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 In fairness, I think they meant a shock to the global economy. Which it would be! I don't think they meant 'surprise'!!!! I really don't know why it would be a shock, I can understand where we can contrive reasons why there could be a disruptive effect, but I do believe that would be contrived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
955i Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 These days a politician is judged by how well he/she can mask the truth to put a favourable spin on his/her own party. In the old days we had proper politicians. Not saying that they were all squeaky clean but most of them put the country first. If they were caught out there wasn't any need for enquiries. They would tender their resignation out of shame which is something the mob we have now know nothing about. Get rid of party politics. Let each man/woman tender a C.V and elect the best man/woman for the job on the strength of that. Let him build a cabinet based on their C.V knowing that in 3/4 years time he'll be kicked out if he doesn't perform well just the same as the rest of us. +1 I've been saying this for ages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) No we did not, watch the Winkle Brown documentary, at the end of the Battle of Britain the weekly losses incurred by the Luftwaffe were less than those incurred by the allies, Hitler ordered the recall of all Fighter squadrons to start Operation Barbarossa. We were saved by Hitler switching his target from the UK to the USSR! https://youtu.be/szten4iypCM?t=2117 Just to help you find it like. I don't usually agree with Chrisjh, but on this occasion he is right! Hitlers only chance of invading Britain was by flotilla of huge barges, and without superiority of the air plus the seas, they were doomed. Hitler had neither. Edited February 28, 2016 by Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun4860 Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Come on guys, It's been a good debate so far, Let's keep it to the point and not drag who what why the war was won some 70 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Basically, it's down to whether you like 'big government' or not. One-size-fits-all, especially if not everyone speaks the same language, is not the answer in my eyes. I look at the UESR like the large farms in the Soviet Union. Someone sits behind his leather-bound desk and makes a decision for millions of acres, if he gets it wrong, it's famine/starvation/hardship for a lot of people. The peasant farmers, each making their own decisions on their little patch, had to feed the people, because enough of the decisions were successful. There's no fertilizer like the farmer's boot. Economies of scale/excess scale personified. Does any nationalised industry make a profit unless it has a monopoly? The small countries trying to join the UESR look on it like people in this country trying to get a civil service job-for-life, take ,take, take! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Come on guys, It's been a good debate so far, Let's keep it to the point and not drag who what why the war was won some 70 years ago. My apologies. It's a bug bear of mine. Sorry for drifting off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 The small countries trying to join the UESR look on it like people in this country trying to get a civil service job-for-life, take ,take, take! That`s a very broad statement to make. I was chatting with a Serbian mate and mentioned to him I`d heard the Serbian president had said that if the UK went for the Brexit it would make Serbia joining the EU a less attractive option. My mate`s opinion was that the EU was good for large, wealthy countries but bad for smaller poorer countries and that he would not wish to join. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodp Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 That`s a very broad statement to make. I was chatting with a Serbian mate and mentioned to him I`d heard the Serbian president had said that if the UK went for the Brexit it would make Serbia joining the EU a less attractive option. My mate`s opinion was that the EU was good for large, wealthy countries but bad for smaller poorer countries and that he would not wish to join. Maybe so, but I'll bet the Serbian president can't sign up quick enough, then hold his hand out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 The Polish people who came to work with us in 2004-5 told us that their jobs were being kept open/available for them back home while they came to Britain to send money back. Germany has done well from being in the Eurozone because it's currency has effectively been devalued, making exports cheaper. If it still had the DMark, the speculators would make for a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 I bet a lot of British women are watching the queues of Islamist young males trying to get into UESR countries with horror. Once they have been granted asylum in Germany, they will be thinking of coming to Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts