Keelan Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 (edited) It was only the other week that unelected Fabian-Socialist Bilderberger Gordon Brown called for a New World Order. Â How is he unelected? Â In that he wasn't put before a general election. I don't like the idea that when one steps down another can just take their place because they are from the same regime that was initially elected. Edited March 18, 2010 by Keelan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted March 18, 2010 Moderators Share Posted March 18, 2010 (edited) It was only the other week that unelected Fabian-Socialist Bilderberger Gordon Brown called for a New World Order. Â How is he unelected? Â In that he wasn't put before a general election. Â What? He won his seat in a General Election, so he was elected. You don't vote for a Prime Minister, you vote for the person running in your constituency. Unless there was a meeting in which we changed to voting for the Prime Minister and I missed it. Â I don't like the idea that when one steps down another can just take their place because they are from the same regime that was initially elected. Â So because you don't like an idea, it makes it to be the truth? Edited March 18, 2010 by ButchReedMark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keelan Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 It was only the other week that unelected Fabian-Socialist Bilderberger Gordon Brown called for a New World Order. Â How is he unelected? Â In that he wasn't put before a general election. Â What? He won his seat in a General Election, so he was elected. You don't vote for a Prime Minister, you vote for the person running in your constituency. Unless there was a meeting in which we changed to voting for the Prime Minister and I missed it. Â I'm well aware of that, but if the leader of a party does such a cack job that he is forced to resign, I personally think there should be a general election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keelan Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 It was only the other week that unelected Fabian-Socialist Bilderberger Gordon Brown called for a New World Order. Â How is he unelected? Â In that he wasn't put before a general election. Â What? He won his seat in a General Election, so he was elected. You don't vote for a Prime Minister, you vote for the person running in your constituency. Unless there was a meeting in which we changed to voting for the Prime Minister and I missed it. Â I don't like the idea that when one steps down another can just take their place because they are from the same regime that was initially elected. Â So because you don't like an idea, it makes it to be the truth? Â Did Gordon Brown go through an election? No. So was he elected, not really. Â The term unelected has been used long before me. This is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted March 18, 2010 Moderators Share Posted March 18, 2010 (edited) He did go through an election though. The General Election of 2005, also the Labour Leadership Election of 2007. Edited March 18, 2010 by ButchReedMark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keelan Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 He did go through an election though. The General Election of 2005. Â That was Blair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted March 18, 2010 Moderators Share Posted March 18, 2010 Are you a fucking drongo? He won his seat in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in 2005. We do not have a presidential system here. Are you aware of FPTP and the Constituencies? Â Or is everyone else here deluded, and you are the beacon of light to usher in a new dawn of politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Kookoocachu Posted March 18, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted March 18, 2010 So now he's as stupid as he is annoying. SHOCKERZ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Icon Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Why are we all ragging on Keelan? Â You all quite blatantly know what he means, and it's a just and valid argument. Yes you don't vote for the Prime Minister, but whoever is leading the party bares a large significance to who you vote for, because you're aware that that person would be running the country. Case in point, the 1992 General Election; people weren't comfortable with the thought of Neil Kinnock running the country, so voted Conservative. If John major had resigned 2 years into his term and the Tories just stuck Heseltine in for example, there'd have been a right kick off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keelan Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 For goodness sake it's a common phrase. You know that, I know that. You'd probably be agreeing with me if this wasn't a "conspiracy theory" thread where you're hellbent on playing devils advocate with everything. Â Nobody elected labor with Gordon Brown at the helm. He didn't lead a party in to election, he simply took Blair's place. Â The 2007 leader election wasn't voted by the general public. In fact papers carried stories asking whether they should just call a general election and get rid of labor. Â Ironically Brown then handed a lot of power to the Unelected Mandelson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 So it's only when they're meeting to rip off their human skins and lounge around in lizard form that you have a problem with it? Just to clarify. Come on now, he didn't mention anything about lizards or the like, did he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted March 18, 2010 Moderators Share Posted March 18, 2010 For goodness sake it's a common phrase. You know that, I know that. You'd probably be agreeing with me if this wasn't a "conspiracy theory" thread where you're hellbent on playing devils advocate with everything. Â Not at all. I was never a fan of Blair, but I voted for the Labour (Not sodding "Labor") Party because they were the Party I believed in. Not the man. I imagine it's the same for a lot of people. Â The term "They'd vote for a donkey as long as it was wearing a *insert colour* rosette" comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Icon Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Case in point, the 1992 General Election; people weren't comfortable with the thought of Neil Kinnock running the country, so voted Conservative. If John major had resigned 2 years into his term and the Tories just stuck Heseltine in for example, there'd have been a right kick off. Â Major wasn't elected by the public in 1990. He took over due to Thatcher being ousted from within. Â I'm well aware of that, and there was the same outcry from Kinnock, the same issues raised, the same calls for a General Election, just from the other side. Â What's good for one is good for the other, and for what it's worth, I agree with those calling for a General Election in both cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Britain wasn't given a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. I don't like that. Neither do I to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keelan Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Britain wasn't given a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. I don't like that. Neither do I to be honest. Â I see it as our leaders thinking they know better than us, when they are supposedly elected to represent us. A simple vote is all I ask. It comes back to this elitist attitude. Â So they want a new order under a global structure. Is it their right to move us in that direction without input from the people? Whether their intentions are good or not? I don't think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts