UrbScotty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 09:29 PM
Original message |
Pop quiz: Who was Prime Minister of Britain... |
|
...from 1766-1768?
How about from 1783-1801, and again from 1801-1804?
|
joeybee12
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 09:30 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I'm not sure, but I think all their last names were Pitt |
Rabrrrrrr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 09:32 PM
Response to Original message |
|
The elder and the younger!
|
UrbScotty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
Swede
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
13. Wasn't Pittsburgh named after one of them? |
|
I may have been sleeping in history class that day.
|
Rabrrrrrr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 09:33 PM
Response to Original message |
joeybee12
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
Pitt the Elder Pitt the Younger Pitt the Fetus Pitt the Gleam in the Milkman's Eye
|
roguevalley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. heh-heh-heh. I think our will pitt needs his own blackadder. Think of |
GOPisEvil
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. Would matcom be Baldrick? |
joeybee12
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
12. I don't know enough about Matcom's personal hygiene to say! |
|
Oh should I say, LACK of personal hygiene.
|
WilliamPitt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 09:34 PM
Response to Original message |
4. This is getting ridiculous |
UrbScotty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
7. But we love you, Will! |
GOPisEvil
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 09:42 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Jeebus! This is getting out of hand. |
|
Reality check time: Dude snores; and he drools on your couch when he crashes on it! :P
|
Squeech
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 09:43 PM
Response to Original message |
9. And Pitt the Younger was almost as bad as Bush the Younger |
|
During his term of office, England lost the war with the Americans, which meant they lost a great source of colonial revenue. But Pitt never cut back on spending, at least not for the titled classes. Something had to give, and it was the resources for the common man, especially those in the Navy: they kept getting their rations cut (actually the procurement system was so corrupt that everybody took it for granted that a pound of food was only 14 ounces), their pay was always late, they got runarounds instead of shore leave, etc. Ultimately by the end of the century there were some pretty extreme mutinies. But Pitt in his powdered wig kept saying "Bring it on!"
It didn't help matters that by this time George III was a babbling lunatic.
|
muriel_volestrangler
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
Pitt the Younger is well thought of. He took office after America got independence, and Britain prospered under him. In the end, he successfully resisted Napoleon. The Navy can't have been in that bad a state - they won the Battle of Trafalgar, as well as several earlier battles.
|
Squeech
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
16. Well, he didn't look so good during the mutinies |
|
Maybe he had a parliament full of Repukes he had to work with. But it looked to me like he was working to maintain all the expensive perks of the nobility, and screwing over the working men and sailors.
The parallels to the present day were pretty scary.
|
Noordam
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Nov-28-03 10:12 PM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:44 PM
Response to Original message |