Anythings better than the (double) shite we have now. Politicians? I wouldn't piss in their ear if their brains were on fire.
SCUM!! LOWEST OF THE LOW!! FUCKING WASTE OF..........................(insert whatever..................or anything)
The Monarchy Page 4
Quote: Hercules Grytpype Thynne @ 27th May 2019, 11:13 AMAnythings better than the (double) shite we have now. Politicians? I wouldn't piss in their ear if their brains were on fire.
SCUM!! LOWEST OF THE LOW!! FUCKING WASTE OF..........................(insert whatever..................or anything)
What brains?
Brio's rules of debating. If you lose a point move the goal posts.
What other pensioner still gets paid full salary for doing f**k all?
What does the Sovereign Grant actually cover? Does it include all the police costs in guarding the Royaks and their minions when they turn up to cut a ribbon at the latest WI fete? I suspect you haven't a clue, Bill, about the various other costs we're forking out for.
Quote: billwill @ 27th May 2019, 12:13 PMBrio's rules of debating. If you lose a point move the goal posts.
Isn't that the same with remainers?
They're even claiming a victory in the eu voting.
Quote: billwill @ 27th May 2019, 12:13 PMBrio's rules of debating. If you lose a point move the goal posts.
More personal attacks, Bill. You're doing well. Whoever stole your scone these days, it wasn't me.
Quote: DaButt @ 25th May 2019, 7:28 PMWatch the Ronald Reagan shooting video and notice how quickly pistols and sub machine guns appear.
I've met 3 presidents and every time a Secret Service agent "accidentally" bumped into me and had a quick feel. They're exceptionally good at their jobs.
Just been watching footage on youtube and you can see how they all rush towards the danger and are only thinking of protecting the president. I think I was incorrect when I said the people protecting Will or Harry at the darts was ex army because all the close protection bodyguards for royalty are from the Royal Protection Squad which is a branch of the Metropolitan Police. No doubt they have almost Terminator like scanning and the rules of engagement with royals is a lot different to joe public. If you present a threat in the presence of royalty I bet there are no warnings. Just some popping sounds.
What were the occasions you met the presidents DaButt?
Quote: Definitely Tarby @ 28th May 2019, 1:08 AMI think I was incorrect when I said the people protecting Will or Harry at the darts was ex army because all the close protection bodyguards for royalty are from the Royal Protection Squad which is a branch of the Metropolitan Police.
Could be both. A large percentage of American cops are former military.
Quote: Definitely Tarby @ 28th May 2019, 1:08 AMWhat were the occasions you met the presidents DaButt?
I met George H.W. Bush at a baseball game. His son owned the team and they held their spring training in my town. I met his son, George W., at the same stadium a few years later when I ended up in the seat directly behind him.
I met Bill Clinton, Hillary, and Al Gore at a hotel across from my apartment in 1992. I listened to the Secret Service on my scanner and learned exactly where and when they'd arrive. They held a rally the next day at my university and actor River Phoenix's band played. I bumped into him before the show and he asked where he could find a Coke machine. A year later he was dead.
I take it that none of those advocating abolishing the monarchy do have a viable alternative then.
Quote: Billy Bunter @ 25th May 2019, 1:44 PMThe obvious alternative as head of state is, of course, a president. Although, based on recent experience in other countries, certain people may not be happy about that if the candidate they don't support gets elected...
Quote: Billy Bunter @ 27th May 2019, 9:06 AMNobody has addressed my point yet, which would be an important consideration in any campaign to replace the monarchy. Just what we need - more elections, more politicians. And of course they don't lie at all.
Quote: Billy Bunter @ 28th May 2019, 9:19 AMI take it that none of those advocating abolishing the monarchy do have a viable alternative then.
I have already addressed that question by pointing out that it is based on the false premise that, if we abolish the monarchy, we need to replace it with something else.
If we wish to remove a spider from the bath, we simply remove it (or have it removed by somebody else): we don't delay its removal until we think of something else with which to replace it. The simple reason being that we don't need or want a spider in the bath and we don't need or want anything in the bath that performs the same function as a spider.
Similarly, if the dog poos on the living-room carpet, it would be nonsense to suggest the offending material should not be removed until we decide what is to sit there in its place. We don't want or need anything in its place.
Similarly, if a family of travellers set up home on your front lawn . . .
I could go on but I think my point is well made.
Quote: Briosaid @ 27th May 2019, 2:42 PMMore personal attacks, Bill. You're doing well. Whoever stole your scone these days, it wasn't me.
Thank you for proving my point.
Quote: Rood Eye @ 28th May 2019, 9:35 AMI could go on but I think my point is well made.
Well, it's certainly well made with regard to spiders, dog poo and travellers. But I'm not sure they are particularly helpful analogies when considering the constitutional question of whether we need a head of state separate to parliament.
There is no major country that has the head of its legislature as its head of state (including France, USA, Ireland, Italy, Germany, Japan, Russia...). There is a reason for that.
The recent nonsense shows how unwise it would be to have Parliament accountable only to itself. It would have the power to dissolve itself whenever it thought it advantageous to do so, leaving the country even more ungoverned than it is now. With increasing instances of hung parliaments, what would happen when no-one is able to form a government (a role in which the Italian President has found himself involved on many occasions over the years)? Who would step in if a parliamentary bill breaches fundamental principles?
Who would command the armed forces? To whom would the Civil Service be ultimately responsible? Both roles are necessarily separate from Parliament.
Quote: Billy Bunter @ 28th May 2019, 1:33 PMWell, it's certainly well made with regard to spiders, dog poo and travellers. But I'm not sure they are particularly helpful analogies when considering the constitutional question of whether we need a head of state separate to parliament.
My analogies were not intended to help people decide whether or not we need a head of state separate from parliament: that's an entirely separate issue. They were intended to demonstrate that it is both possible and entirely normal to get rid of something we don't like without replacing it.
If the monarchy were to be abolished, the monarch's powers would either cease to exist or, where necessary, could be given to a non-royal person or to several other people.
Quote: Rood Eye @ 28th May 2019, 2:14 PMIf the monarchy were to be abolished, the monarch's powers would either cease to exist or, where necessary, could be given to a non-royal person or to several other people.
Well that was a most enlightening solution to the question. Thank you.
Quote: Billy Bunter @ 28th May 2019, 3:07 PMWell that was a most enlightening solution to the question. Thank you.
You're very welcome, Billy.
I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.
Quote: Rood Eye @ 28th May 2019, 3:11 PMYou're very welcome, Billy.
I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.
Jesus! 