Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

No, the moral alternative is to implement good housing for all regardless of colour, etc.. You're talking about the illusion of democracy under considerable, albeit largely benevolent, restrictions. True democracy allows for twattishness if the majority of the people vote to be twats.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Peter Dow

[philipsteak]

I am thinking of starting up a "republican nation" if anyone is interested? Such a republican nation consisting of those who oppose the kingdom and monarchy would most likely have a very low percentage who are proud of the Queen.

[eFestivals]

So what power does Liz wield?

The power to do nothing as head of state. The power to rubber-stamp bad governments.

So how does an elected president change anything about that?

Either the president wields power in the USA style and *IS* the bad government, or they're just an elected figurehead (German style) and rubber-stamps bad governments in the exact same way as the British monarch does. Ultimately nothing is improved at the sharp end of things.

So anyway ... do you sell your fruitcake? Can you tell me where I can buy some?

[eFestivals]

the UK state insists on cretins running the BBC, insists on cretins running our universities and insists on cretins running our courts and cretins running our economy.

There is a severe cretin problem here because royalists are cretins. The Queen is a cretin. Prince Charles is a cretin. Royalism is all about raising cretins up high and putting them in charge, of the BBC, of universities, of the courts, of the economy, of the whole country.

So your answer is to replace those cretins with even bigger cretins - yourself and Rice.

Yeah, that'll sort this country out.

Mmmmmmm ..... fruitcake for breakfast.

[kaosmark2]

so what's a border then?

Out of curiosity, what would you do with the BNP? Given that banning them would be as likely to give them more 'credibility' for many as anything

[Peter Dow]

I'm in!

I vote me for King.

[kaosmark2]

How about Pharoah?

[Peter Dow]

So how does an elected president change anything about that?

Edited November 21, 2011 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

The difference is that the constitution of the republic should and a democratic republican constitution would define certain duties for the president which he or she has to do, such as defending the freedoms of the people.

And yet a constitution can say the exact same thing with a monarch as head of state and a PM wielding the power (as we have currently in the UK), so there's no advantage with a president there.

Those duties are part of the job description of president - doing nothing is not constitutional and the president can be impeached and removed from office for doing nothing.

Complete bullshit. It depends on the constitution.

If impeachment is blocked by the government or president (if republicans are locked up or killed for trying to impeach the president) if impeachment doesn't work to get rid of a do-nothing president then republicans can defend the constitution by assassinating the president.

Complete bullshit. It depends on the constitution.

Likewise rubber-stamping a bad government which attacked the freedoms of the people would be unconstitutional and the president would have a duty not to rubber stamp the government but to dismiss the government and if necessary seek to remove it by all means necessary and as commander in chief of the military, the president is in a better position than anyone to dismiss a bad government.

Complete bullshit. It depends on the constitution.

The US Constitution defines mechanisms for impeaching and removing a bad president.

And republic's constitution can also define that such a thing isn't possible.

It is up to US citizens to pass comment on whether any of the assassinations or attempted assassinations against US presidents were justified.

Utter bollocks. The rule of law applies to the president's life just as it does any other US citizen.

The bit within that constitution which says "all are equal before the law" seems to have passed you by.

Well the Germans have had a bad experience with a bad head of state (Hitler) so they have written their constitution so as to keep their president weak but even still a weak president has got to try to defend the constitution and refuse to rubber-stamp a bad government and try to dismiss it.

utter bollocks.

Maybe a weak president won't succeed and will get removed under the constitution but it should still be the duty of the next president to defend the freedoms of the people and refuse to rubber-stamp a bad government and so you could have a series of good presidents doing their best, getting sacked and the next good republican stepping up to be elected as president and to take on a bad government and to try to get it dismissed.

so in your version of 'democracy', "the people" aren't allowed to vote in a 'bad' (whatever that means) govt? PMSL.

Now if and when you get a figure-head president who doesn't dare to try, who does do nothing and who does rubber-stamp a bad government then that is the figure-head president who should be impeached, removed or assassinated by republicans insisting on the constitution be upheld and the freedoms of the people be respected.

there is nothing within any constitution that I know of which says a president can say what is a good or bad govt and have them removed on just his say so that they're 'bad'.

So no, it is clear that much can improved with a good president with duties to perform and an exit route if he or she doesn't do them.

and all the same things can be improved with a good Prime Minister and with Liz still living it up in Buck House.

You believe yourself to be a republican. It would help if you actually understood what republicanism means. All you've said so far is completely irrelevant to what republicanism can do over the likes of the 'constitutional monarchy' that the UK operates.

I support the idea of a Britain becoming a republic 100%, but I'm not so much of a fruitcake to think that it changes anything aside from making Liz and co have to claim standard benefits and not their own special ones. Aside from how a head of state is put in place, everything else remains identical; if other parts of the political process are in need of changing they can be changed with Liz still in Buck House.

How much is your fruitcake by the way?

[Peter Dow]

So your answer is to replace those cretins

[kaosmark2]

Yes. Replace the monarch with an elected head of state, a president.

All other powerful cretins running the kingdom, especially those working in law and order with powerful jobs such as judges and chiefs of police, should also be replaced by elected persons.

Wrong. Cretins should not be allowed to run for president.

There would need to be an intelligence test before anyone got to stand for president.

Also people who were habitual drunks or drug users should be banned.

A president needs to be in control all the time.

So famous popular people such as drunken or doped-up washed-up very famous film stars, pop stars, sports stars and football managers who the proles like a lot and might vote for would be banned from standing for president.

I am not saying all pop stars are cretins or drunks. Some could stand. I can think of at least one brainy one right away but I don't think he is a republican.

So no famous cretins would be allowed on the ballot paper.

Use your vote for president wisely and vote for an impressive person of intellect.

Now if you trust that you will vote for the best candidate in your opinion, then so will other people.

Therefore it is guaranteed that the people would be bound to elect a president who was less of a cretin than the Queen is, someone who is not a cretin at all in fact.

I am not a cretin and neither is Condoleezza Rice but there are plenty of other clever people who would stand and who you could vote for as president.

The choice of who you vote for as president would be yours but we will need to demand that we get that choice of president or we won't get a choice and we will be the stuck with the same cretin Windsor royals.

[jump]

Wrong. Cretins should not be allowed to run for president.

There would need to be an intelligence test before anyone got to stand for president.

Also people who were habitual drunks or drug users should be banned.

A president needs to be in control all the time.

So famous popular people such as drunken or doped-up washed-up very famous film stars, pop stars, sports stars and football managers who the proles like a lot and might vote for would be banned from standing for president.

I am not saying all pop stars are cretins or drunks. Some could stand. I can think of at least one brainy one right away but I don't think he is a republican.

So no famous cretins would be allowed on the ballot paper.

Use your vote for president wisely and vote for an impressive person of intellect.

Now if you trust that you will vote for the best candidate in your opinion, then so will other people.

Therefore it is guaranteed that the people would be bound to elect a president who was less of a cretin than the Queen is, someone who is not a cretin at all in fact.

[Peter Dow]

so what's a border then?

Edited November 21, 2011 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

All other powerful cretins running the kingdom, especially those working in law and order with powerful jobs such as judges and chiefs of police, should also be replaced by elected persons.

what a brilliant idea. Let's replace the people who know something about their jobs with people who know nothing about those jobs, that'll sort the problems out.

Wrong. Cretins should not be allowed to run for president.

But you're clearly a big fan of the USA, and they almost make it obligatory. Why the contradiction?

There would need to be an intelligence test before anyone got to stand for president.

using psychiatric methodology to formulate those tests of course. There's no other way.

Also people who were habitual drunks or drug users should be banned.

Why? Are all the smart people teetotal?

A president needs to be in control all the time.

so which president has managed that level of excellence then?

And don't others in the democratic process get any say, or are we to have dictatorship by the president in your 'democracy'?

So no famous cretins would be allowed on the ballot paper.

I guess you need to revise your ideas about you being in some sort of leadership role in your utopia then.

Use your vote for president wisely and vote for an impressive person of intellect.

Like George W Bush?

Now if you trust that you will vote for the best candidate in your opinion, then so will other people.

Even the cretins who aren't fit to stand for office?

Therefore it is guaranteed that the people would be bound to elect a president who was less of a cretin than the Queen is, someone who is not a cretin at all in fact.

like George W Bush?

[eFestivals]

I am not a cretin ....

I think there's a big queue of people who wish to disagree.

... and neither is Condoleezza Rice but there are plenty of other clever people who would stand and who you could vote for as president.

Like George W Bush perhaps?

The choice of who you vote for as president would be yours but we will need to demand that we get that choice of president or we won't get a choice and we will be the stuck with the same cretin Windsor royals.

How's about allowing people to vote for whether they want a president before that? Or isn't that a part of your version of democracy?

[Peter Dow]

Well he would ban them. Which is stupid.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Peter Dow

[kaosmark2]

I wonder what the suffragetes would think of the idea of 'democracy, but only for the people I want to have it'.

[Peter Dow]

How about Pharoah?

[Ed209]

Surely whatever this mentalist posts can be classed as Spam? Its nothing but perpetual bollocks.

Can something please be done?

[eFestivals]

This kind of blew up in your face a bit

I have to admit, my opinions have changed during the course of this thread. What I thought were just the odd and quaint ramblings of a weirdo, are in fact the illogical and darn right retarded ramblings of dumb fool.

Couldn't give a shit if they ban him or not

The thing is, I allow posts from people who think that Jessie J is a shining example of high musical talent.

Given that posts like those and a huge number of others fall in the same category, why should only Dow be considered for banning? If I started down that route, then not only would I have to ban all of you lot, I'd have to ban me too.

[kaosmark2]

The thing is, I allow posts from people who think that Jessie J is a shining example of high musical talent.

Given that posts like those and a huge number of others fall in the same category, why should only Dow be considered for banning? If I started down that route, then not only would I have to ban all of you lot, I'd have to ban me too.

[Ed209]

The thing is, I allow posts from people who think that Jessie J is a shining example of high musical talent.

Given that posts like those and a huge number of others fall in the same category, why should only Dow be considered for banning? If I started down that route, then not only would I have to ban all of you lot, I'd have to ban me too.

[russycarps]

Peter can I just say your photoshop skills are remarkable. That photo of the queen as the grim reaper a few pages back was truly wondrous.

[Ed209]

It had 9,829 views, 61 likes and 51 dislikes.

Now, OK, I am no "Condoleezza Rice" but "completely failing to inspire anyone" is a bit harsh on me, isn't it?

Edited November 21, 2011 by Ed209

[sifi]

"In love" does not equal "mentally deranged".

What a sad world it would be if people had to hide their love away, be scared to mention it, in case they got sectioned.