Peter Dow

[russycarps]

Yet if you or someone you love was arrested here by police from another country you would find that more absurd.

I don't know which country you live in but suppose you are walking along the street of your home town and suddenly a Toyota or Honda or some other Japanese car screeches to a halt beside you and out spill 4 Japanese police officers who arrest you on the charge of economic sabotage to the Japanese whaling and tuna fishing industry because of your activities in opposing whaling and supporting dolphins and all that and they put you on a plane back to Japan to stand trial for your "crimes".

OK it won't happen because borders are respected but suppose it did - would you want the UK police and courts do nothing because they respect your wishes that "the whole concept of borders between countries is absurd."

The reality is nobody follows your wishes about borders because if they did even you would hate it.

Well I am not "rabid" and it is a lie to say I am.

[eFestivals]

Well I am not "rabid" and it is a lie to say I am.

If you were a dog, you'd be more than rabid enough to be put down.

You are against the monarchy. Fair enough, so am I.

But unlike you I'm not unthinkingly supportive of states which have elected presidents, just because they have an elected president. Liz Windsor wields no power, unlike the USA's president who wields it in an undemocratic manner within the USA, and is a bringer of death to those outside and who didn't get to vote for George to kill them.

As for your love of Condi, pleeeeaaaase. She was more Bush's poodle than even Blair managed, and she certainly didn't do the USA any favours around the illegal invasion of Iraq, which she supported in full - in fact, encouraged more than any other individual within the Bush administration. Yes, even more so than Rumsfeld and Cheney.

[russycarps]

No I am not. You've no reason to think that is probable. You are being unfair to me. You are saying bad things about me.

You are contradicting yourself in the same paragraph. Saying "good on him" and "fair play" but writing bad and unfair things about me.

Don't say you are being fair when you are being unfair.

If you are being unfair then admit to that.

If you want to honestly say you are being fair to me then stop being unfair to me.

Don't tell lies about yourself. Be consistent. Be fair to me and don't write that I am probably "surrounded by bottles of piss" etc.

[fred quimby]

Peter Dow for President

[jump]

of what?

[Peter Dow]

I just knew that no good would come of "Care in the Community" :-(

[russycarps]

I have never had any mental health problems and so I don't in any way need nor have I ever used "Care in the Community". So your suggestion is unfair, insulting and offensive to me.

[Peter Dow]

so you're not a fan of democracy then?

Edited November 17, 2011 by Peter Dow

[russycarps]

Again, you're miles behind the times. The BNP are in utter disarray. Humilated at the polls and in massive conflict internally.

You are focusing on yet another trivial matter.

[rexclark]

Got a bird yet Peter?

[Peter Dow]

as you say, it won't happen. Why bring it up?

Edited November 17, 2011 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

It is the BNP which promotes anti-democrat politics and so their politics should be outlawed in order to defend democracy.

except they don't. Which is why they've not been banned.

You and I might recognise the unspoken sub-text of what they plan to do, but until they're proven as not adhering to our laws around what is democracy, they're in the clear.

And regardless of that, banning them does nothing to stop people thinking as they do. The only way that can be changed is by winning the argument - which you can't do if you don't allow the argument because their view is censored. ;_

You can't outlaw what disorganised racists think privately. You can ban them organising in political parties, appearing on Question Time and running for election. So you can ban the BNP. We should ban the BNP.

then you're not the democrat you believe yourself to be.

Censoring a view because it upsets your sensibilities is the antithesis of democracy.

The BBC broadcast the BNP's politics, they give them a platform to speak their race hate. Sure the BBC support other parties more but they certainly support the BNP to a very dangerous extent.

oh do piss off with your wrong bollocks, and get a reality check.

No it isn't. Lies about patriotism are destructive and divisive, sure.

The BNP claim to be "British patriots" but they are not. They are traitors to the British people. They are liars. They BNP should be banned. Banning the BNP is the British patriotic thing to do.

If you allow traitors like BNP to claim their racism is in some way "British patriotism" that is destructive and divisive sure.

So it is you who is the one who is supporting the free speech of the BNP to tell lies about patriotism and so it is you who is supporting the BNP being destructive and divisive.

True patriotism, when properly led, by constructive, uniting political leaders, is a constructive and uniting political idea.

have you ever considered doing stand up?

[kaosmark2]

If you support an unqualified free speech, anything goes, then you are supporting incitement to race hate, assault and murder. People who thought like you supported the free speech of the Nazis and look what happened.

[Peter Dow]

I have looked at some of your clips now.

[Ed209]

I can't believe you're not on MI5's watch list

[Peter Dow]

If you were a dog, you'd be more than rabid enough to be put down.

[Ed209]

Pity you did not find out that my goals are to save people.

Shame if you think that saving people is trivial but I think it more likely that you don't understand my goals are to save people.

I think a good president of a republic can save a lot more people than having a monarch could ever save.

[kaosmark2]

Nope. If I were a dog, Condoleezza Rice would be Lassie and I would be her son Laddie.

[Peter Dow]

You are against the monarchy. Fair enough, so am I.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Peter Dow

[kaosmark2]

Definitely satire.

[eFestivals]

I am against the monarchy in a cold war kind of way. I blame the monarchy for death and destruction and missed opportunity.

Yes, I've noticed that you do. It's because you're a fruitcake without any grip on reality.

You seem to be against the monarchy in a "leaning back against the back of your armchair" kind of way. You seem to be comfortable with the monarchy are you not? You don't feel any great pain of sympathy for death and disaster caused by the monarchy, do you? You could comfortably snooze your life away being "against" the monarchy, right?

oh do fuck off you self-obsessed moron.

There are far more important things to act against than the world's best paid dole scroungers. Like the people who actually have power to wield, and who wield it badly.

I mean if you met "Sir" Bob Geldof at a festival you would not blame him for accepting a honorary knighthood, would you? You'd say "right on Bob" (it would not enter your head that by taking the honorary knighthood, by being seen to support the monarchy and allying himself with corrupt African dictators like Mugabe who also got a knighthood, Bob guarantees the continuing ruination of Africa, mass poverty and many more deaths of starving children than ever Band Aid & Live Aid saved, fantastic though those aid concerts were).

I'm so very glad your psychic skills are so powerful that you're able to know exactly what I think on the basis of nothing at all.

Perhaps you should take a moment to use those same psychic skills to look at why just about everyone things you're a fruitcake even when they agree with your aims but not the factually wrong bollocks that drives you to have those aims.

[eFestivals]

To you the monarchy is neither nor there, does no good but does no great harm, according to you, right?

At the end of the day, that's the fact of the matter. To be able to do more harm than your fruitcake ideas, they'd need to have a formal power that's greater than you have with your fruitcake ideas.

So long as a corrupt African government gets the money that Bob demanded it is cool with you, no matter that they use the money to prop up their rotten regime and never allow good government to run the country in such a way as they could achieve self-sufficiency and economic growth?

you're so right. I'm all for corruption I am. I even pay to see it.

What good did aid money and the monarchist approach do for the people in the Rwandan genocide? None.

and what did aid money and the monarchist approach have to do with the Rwandan genocide? None.

is the fruitcake your mother's recipe?

Thinking things through is not what being against the monarchy is for you is it? Being against the monarchy for you is maybe just trendy looking for some fellow festival goers?

My Chanel jeans with "I hate kings and queens" printed on it looks rather cool, don't you think?

No actually I do think things through.

Then please do tell me what meaningful power Liz Windsor wields to give one iota of justification to you baking fruitcake for a living.

[eFestivals]

Try asking for your change in coins without her face on them. Try electing a British or English or Australian president as head of state of those countries. You can't because the monarch just by being there is exercising power to stop the state having an accountable head in charge of it. So the state is left in charge of itself, unaccountable.

So what power does Liz wield?

The state wields all power and they keep the monarch there so as to keep all the power with the state - the judges, the civil servants, the BBC etc.. It is we people who have no real power only rigged elections with republicans banned from parliament.

you really should consider doing stand up you know.

The USA may not be perfectly democratic but the elected US president is way more democratic than the monarchy.

but less democratic than those who wield power in the UK.

Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden deserved to die and the US Presidents did their job to defend the people.

If how you've worded that is what you truly believe, then you've just proven that those US presidents are criminals under their own laws

The danger comes from being the lapdog or corgi of the Queen and Blair was more a corgi than Condi ever was.

fruitcake.

The invasion of Iraq was not illegal.

fruitcake.

[russycarps]

If the monarchy ceased to exist all that would change is we have a different picture on our coins and banknotes, and the government would save a few million quid a year.

Absolutely nothing of any real consequence whatsoever would change. Only, and sorry if you think this is unfair Peter, a cretin of gargantuan magnitude would think otherwise.

Sure, I'd love to see the monarchy dismantled, but compared to the rest of the worlds problems this is a microscopic concern. As is the break up of the United Kingdom or not. Independence for Scotland? I could not give a shiney shite. It matters not a jot.

You appear to have some kind of passion and drive, such a shame you are wasting it so completely.

And going back to your claims that you are a "leader". You demonstrate none of the communication skills, charisma and panache required by a strong leader. You have not persuaded a single person here by your arguments. In fact, even those of use who broadly share your views - abolishion of the monarchy - do not side with you.

You are, in fact, the polar opposite of a leader. You are almost making us want to support the monarchy just so we arent seen to side with you in any way whatsoever.

[fred quimby]

of what?