We wouldn't then have had the Bush presidency.
2006-08-03 14:52:56 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
InkyBob, There is always a down side to every theory, I agree with you.
2006-08-03 15:12:00 · update #1
No, then we'd have Blair.
2006-08-03 14:59:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Wow......too bad you didn't study your history. We are much better off now, and thankfully Britain also has come a long way baby. Things were not very pleasant, but then the King or Queen were the authority back then.
2006-08-03 22:01:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
British rule? Isn't taht an oxymoron? I think not.
2006-08-03 21:59:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. But only for people who like boiled food.
2006-08-03 22:00:31 · answer #4 · answered by Ozmoo 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but it would be better if you were still under african rule
2006-08-03 21:56:20 · answer #5 · answered by Simms 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wouldn't have had Clinton either so what's your point?
2006-08-03 21:58:18 · answer #6 · answered by Dagblastit 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Don't like warm beer and bangers & mash.
2006-08-03 23:13:33 · answer #7 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would have made WWI and WWII very intersting indeed.
2006-08-03 21:57:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, we would be better of if we were true communist.
2006-08-03 21:56:24 · answer #9 · answered by Ludwig Wittgenstein 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
HECK NO!!!!!!!
2006-08-03 21:57:31 · answer #10 · answered by Tom 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋