Peter Dow

[feral chile]

Being in love with someone you've never met might be construed as ever so slightly deranged.

Edited November 21, 2011 by feral chile

[russycarps]

Hi Peter,

If condoleeza rice desperately needed to use the toilet (for a poo) and there was no toilet paper, would you volunteer yourself to be used as an ad-hoc toilet roll (ie an item of your clothing/hand/hair/tongue)?

I'll wait.

[Peter Dow]

and freedom is what? You are aware of the concept that one man's freedom isn't everyone else's?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Hi Peter,

If condoleeza rice desperately needed to use the toilet (for a poo) and there was no toilet paper, would you volunteer yourself to be used as an ad-hoc toilet roll (ie an item of your clothing/hand/hair/tongue)?

I'll wait.

[sifi]

That's a bit harsh, actually. people who feel socially excluded often form an emotional attachment with someone they know of - celebrities etc. Love's a healthy human emotion, and in the absence of intimacy in a person's private life, an object of affection is often found in the form of a public figure.

Teenagers, in particular, develop their emotions by forming a crush on their favourite celebrity, and it's akin to being in love for the first time.

As long as it stays loving from afar, of course, and doesn't develop into stalking or harrassment, it's harmless.

Touching a teddy bear can improve the social lives of the socially excluded, apparently.

[Peter Dow]

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.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

The issue of concern is what can citizens do when the head of state and his/her ministers are not doing the duties to keep the country and the people free?

care to tell me how anything about that is changed by replacing Liz with an elected president?

The citizen is powerless if the kingdom's constitution from hell is respected.

and nothing changes if the USA's constitution from hell is respected.

There is no provision in a kingdom for removing a monarch whose ministers and officers are attacking and denying the freedoms of the people as Queen Elizabeth's have been all her reign.

And there is no provision in a republic for removing a president whose ministers and officers are attacking and denying the freedoms of the people as every president of the USA has done in each of their terms.

[Peter Dow]

It depends on the constitution.

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

Edited November 22, 2011 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

No, not a good well written democratic republican constituion couldn't.

and the same applies with a well-written constitution for what gets called our 'constitutional monarchy'.

So far, not one jot of what you've said is of any relevance to us having a monarch as head of state. All of the same 'bad' things can and do happen in republics.

And in reverse to that, a well-written constitution will perform just as well for 'the people' regardless of whether the head of state is a monarch or an elected president.

It's the powers of that head of state which makes the difference. A executive-power-less queen is absolutely no different to an executive-power-less president (as exists in countries such as Ireland, Germany & Italy).

I am arguing in favour of a good democratic republican constitution which makes it clear that whatever the details may be, if the people find themselves in the predictable situation of a state which is denying the people their democratic freedoms then the final solution, if peaceful methods fail, is to assassinate the head of state and keep right on assassinating heads of state, keep right on waging war against the state which has made itself the enemy of the people, until such time as the state is either destroyed and replaced or it changes its ways so that the state now respects the freedoms of the people.

mmmm ... fruitcake for lunch.

Now sure, a good written constitution will provide for peaceful methods to remove a bad head of state but a badly written constitution which tries define ways to keep a bad head of state in place is a bad constitution which should be binned.

so you intend to create the world's first perfect republic? How quaint of you.

Do you have a draft of that idea written down? And if you do, can I get 10% of all I make in flogging it to comedians?

Republicans don't support bad constitutions,

the reality of the USA proves you wrong. Four failed French republics prove you wrong.

[Peter Dow]

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

Edited November 22, 2011 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

Above the rule of law comes the rule of the constitution.

Above the rule of any constitution comes the rule of freedom and democracy.

No matter what the rule of law say, the rules of freedom and democracy overrule the rule of law, lawyers and courts, at least they do for those who believe in and fight for freedom.

I've got ya.

You say you believe in democracy but don't, and you don't believe in the rule of law either.

This is some utopia you're hoping to build.

If lawyers and the courts don't defend freedom and democracy then the court room battles are over and it is time for a war of liberation.

or alternatively, it's time for you to go on a course to understand what law is and how it has to operate.

Only when basic freedoms are respected

like the freedom of people to have a different view to you? Just a thought.

I imagine that a US citizen who had been as abused as I have been would feel the same about the US president or US governor whose state abused them.

they probably do.

And the fact that they're a republic changes nothing about any part of it. Just a thought.

[russycarps]

Peter, just a quick point, when you start talking about shooting people etc it makes you look like a foaming at the mouth crackpot. Arent we a little bit more civilised than shooting those we disagree with?

Just putting it out there.

[Peter Dow]

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

Edited November 22, 2011 by Peter Dow

[russycarps]

It's not a tricky concept to grasp at all.

How does reciprocity come into it?

[kaosmark2]

Peter, just a quick point, when you start talking about shooting people etc it makes you look like a foaming at the mouth crackpot. Arent we a little bit more civilised than shooting those we disagree with?

Just putting it out there.

[Ed209]

The similarities between this thread and the BNP on question time are striking. This is why all political opinions should be discussed and questioned openly, it exposes the idiots for who they are, be it Griffin or Dow.

[Peter Dow]

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'.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Peter Dow

[feral chile]

So what you are saying is that Peter has the emotional responses of a teenage girl with a crush on Robbie Williams and should be given a teddy bear?

[Peter Dow]

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

Edited November 22, 2011 by Peter Dow

[feral chile]

It's not a tricky concept to grasp at all.

How does reciprocity come into it?

[Peter Dow]

Not democracy.

[kaosmark2]

Why not?

[eFestivals]

I do but I am a particular kind of republican - a democrat, who supports democratic republics particularly and who points out the flaws in undemocratic republics and in the ideas of persons such as yourself who claim to be a republican but who support very undemocratic kinds of republics and presidents.

Oh do piss off.

You're definitely "a particular kind of republican" - one who doesn't approve of democracy, as you've made 100% clear with your comments about banning the BNP.

No, I am simply supporting proper democratic republicanism which would make a huge massive difference for the better.

unless of course they want to vote for something you disapprove of, and then you'll have them locked up - because that is *EXACTLY* what you've said.

No the kind of republic you support is a nominal republic, as fascistic and undemocratic in its own way as the kingdom, which changes only a figure head monarch into an elected figure-head president.

In the absense of knowing something, just make it up out of nothing. Oh, I see you already have.

I've said nothing about supporting a republic of that form, I've merely pointed out that swapping Liz for some elected establishment prick changes nothing at the sharp end of things.

And the same issue remains if we were to have a USA-style executive president running things instead of a PM as we have now. It's what they do which matters, not who they are or how they got there.

Sorry but that is maybe 20% of what a republic is. Good start but there is 80% still to understand.

I understand the facts of republics far more than you do, despite you believing it to be your area of expertise. The crap you've posted here puts that beyond doubt.

No you need to think in terms of the Windsors banned from this country and none of the PMs you have ever heard of taking power.

which means fuck all without knowing what thge replacement people would actually do. :roilleyes:

If they did all of the same things - and the opinions of people, you know, those people at the heart of any democracy, get to say they would - then switching to a republic makes nothing better.

It doesn't even save the taxpayer money, cos Liz and co are cheaper to run than a long list of ex-Presidents as the facts from other countries get to prove (that financial issue shouldn't be the decider of course, but it's true all the same).

Everything would be different in a real democratic republic.

In your version, yes it would. It wouldn't be democratic for a start, you've made that clear.

Keeping the monarchy means a lot more innocent people dying while you are changing some things very slowly.

so do please tell me who the monarchy has killed that a republic wouldn't.

I really want to save all the people everywhere in the world that we can so that means the monarchy needs to go as soon as possible.

Democracy has got to show that those people don't believe they need saving - by you or by anyone else.

Have you tried running that idea thru your warped idea of democracy? What was the answer you got out? I'll guess at you shooting them until those that remain agree with your idea of democracy.

[The Nal]

In fact fascist republican constitutions such as the Irish republican constitution claim that it is always a constitutional crime to wage war on the state whereas in democratic theory it is the duty of all republicans to wage war on a undemocratic state which is violating the freedoms of the people.

Therefore we can see that the author of the Irish republican constitution was a bit of a fascist.

Edited November 23, 2011 by The Nal

[fred quimby]

Be careful Peter

http://thehiberniatimes.com/2011/11/23/man-who-sent-texts-about-thai-royals-jailed-for-20-years/13188