Peter Dow

[kaosmark2]

No, your trendy view to look down on Bush's intelligence is more a reflection of how many clever satirists such as Rory Bremner, have portrayed President Bush as less clever than he really is because it is the job of a satirist to demonstrate that even quite clever politicians in high office can make mistakes.

It takes quite a lot of brains to run for election as US president and get re-elected. OK, it takes a lot of money as well but you do need some brains and certainly cannot get away with being the cretin the Queen is who just reads from a prepared script. I can't see the Queen or Prince Charles standing up to some robust questioning at a press conference. Anybody who asks tough questions would be quickly ushered away by the royal security detail.

[feral chile]

Bollocks. What you need to get elected and re-elected is the popular vote, which can be won without any intelligence by the candidate themselves. He may be more of a bumbling idiot than a complete lack of intelligence, but presidents are a face for those that influence them. George Bush was aided by the bumbling idiot from Texas persona. It was a key part of his electoral campaigns, and a key part of his way to appeal to voters.

[Peter Dow]

Neil's right about IQ tests - even psychologists accept they only measure a range of skills - mainly the aptitude for completing IQ tests. It's dangerous to assume there's an objective test to measure a subjective and value-ridden trait like intelligence. The most you can do is measure aptitude for a particular skill set that's culturally associated with intelligence.

[Peter Dow]

you're a great democrat Peter.

[Peter Dow]

Do you ever stop to think you bring this on yourself? Do those kids go and knock on other peoples houses, or by chance is it just yours? I'd wager its just yours. And that because you've got a big blaring siren that goes off, and those kids see it as an achievement that they've done it. You are the local nut job, the idiot who walks around town making a complete show of himself. Deep down, you actually enjoy the attention you get, because otherwise why would you have a sign that says "NO BANGING" (or the equivalent) and a big siren that goes off. I bet nobody else does, and I bet nobody elses doors and windows get banged. Watch that video, look at the way those kids target YOUR flat. And nobody elses. This kind of thing is your own doing. YOUR actions have led to this.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

Also, I like your use of the word "when" although wont Condi be President and Peter "first gimp" (and that his own words!)

Edited November 27, 2011 by Peter Dow

[feral chile]

Actually they started banging before the sign and the alarm were installed because the drunks, yobs etc were attracted by my window display advertising my web site address.

The better solution was to remove the "don't bang on this window" sign and the alarm and install two cameras and try to ignore any banging. The cameras are a deterrent and ignoring the banging is better than complaining because nobody certainly not the police care who is getting tormented in their own home.

It is different if a business with political connections and a lawyer to fight their case was being tormented. Then the police and courts would take action but not for the ordinary citizen with no-one to fight their case; we are left by the police to suffer.

Which is tragic for those who can be driven to suicide by such evil tormenting.

Personally I think you don't care how anti-social people misbehave so long as it is not you being tormented and so you are quite happy to let the scum run riot tormenting people and you are quite happy paying for lazy corrupt dishonest police who do nothing but lock up those who complain.

[Peter Dow]

No, Condi'll be first against the wall. Although in a very different way.

[eFestivals]

I think you have forgotten the point. The debate went as follows.

Which makes no sense - how could a well-written constitution for the UK define mechanisms for impeaching and removing the president? If it is the UK, it won't have a president as head of state, we'll be stuck with the monarch and no president allowed.

it's you that's missed the point. Putting in a president as the head of state doesn't change a thing, not a jot.

It's the policies of any president that changes things against the type of monarchy we operate - a type of monarchy where the PM exercises power, and exercises that power on the basis of having been voted into that position just as a president would have been.

Different policies make a difference; changing heads changes nothing at all.

[russycarps]

This parasite Dow has not held down a job for twenty plus years, on benefits and state handouts for that time, and despite being healthy, refuses to do work which he considers beneath him.

How does he keep getting your and my money? I pay upwards of a grand a month in tax, and the idea that it's funding this utter c**t of a man's lifestyle sickens me.

Can we shop him?

Source http://groups.yahoo....nt/message/1684

Edited November 28, 2011 by russycarps

[eFestivals]

I would have thought the bigger danger would be allowing the public to elect a popular cretin as president.

Better to risk the chance of the tests being subjective than to have no tests and let any fool be president.

So subject yourself to those tests, and have yourself ruled as a cretin unfit for office, and then amend your ideas in light of. that.

Cos do you really think that the people of Scotland or the UK would reach any other conclusion about you?

[eFestivals]

Dow... Get a job...

Nash, he can't .... he has important work to do putting forwards his wacky ideas of what republicanism is, where in his democracy the people's wishes about anything don't count for anything unless they agree with him.

After all, we can't have the people deciding what their constitution might be as it's been done in Ireland, because that only results in fascist clauses put forwards by and approved by the people, against Dow's ideas of what the people should be asking for.

And we certainly can't have a president that acts on the basis of what the people who elected him want. That would be too undemocratic for the likes of Dow.

So let's just put Dow in charge without a vote .... but first he would have to under-go one of those intelligence tests he says that any president should undertake, to protect the people from cretins.

Do the people get any say on the form of that test Peter, to ensure it's all properly democratic as you say you'd like? You know, the sorts of tests that are currently approved of by the people for those sorts of things, and where you get deemed a cretin if you were ever to subject yourself to a test like that?

[fred quimby]

Nash, he can't ....

He is far too busy collecting images of Condi to add to the shrine and then pumping himself full of viagra and then burping his worm until he blows blood

[Peter Dow]

I really think you have missed your calling with all this political nonsense. Sculpture is clearly your forte.

any chance you could post your other photoshopped pics of condi?

[Peter Dow]

YOU'RE A FUCKING LUNATIC

[Peter Dow]

Trouble is, doesn't Condi love the Queen and probably wouldn't want to get rid of her.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Peter Dow

[kaosmark2]

I am not sure if this stupidity by leftist British republicans is entirely self-inflicted. It is possible that British republican movements and parties have been infiltrated by MI5 and police special branch who as agent provocateurs promote anti-Americanism in order to sabotage just the sort of transatlantic republican co-operation I am seeking.

You need to remember that Condi met Gaddafi only a few years before he was overthrown and killed and so in principle Condi meeting the Queen could be no more a statement of American intent than Condi meeting Gaddafi.

[Peter Dow]

You really are so so dense I don't know why I'm still trying.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Peter Dow

[kaosmark2]

Well if you don't know, who does?

Queen Elizabeth is undemocratic but President Saddam Hussein was even more undemocratic than the Queen because Saddam was a fascist mass-murdering dictator of a "president".

So it is not always as simple as you say. It depends.

Maybe a monarch who actually exercised head of state powers to direct the state to stop attacking the freedoms of the people, who vetoed legislation which denied freedoms, who allowed the establishment of parallel republics and election of presidents as the nations wanted within the realm, could actually be quite democratic, though it would be an unlikely and undependable state of affairs it is possible I suppose.

The "democratic monarch" scenario is not a theoretical possibility that any democratic republican would propose to aim for because it is unsatisfactory for the long term - however democratic a monarch was, the next monarch could be a real tyrant. So it would be a dangerous unstable scenario.

Right, it is what the head of state does that matters, we are agreed on that.

Wrong because just by being there as a figure-head head of state, the Queen is blocking the election of a president.

The do-nothing monarch prevents you getting a do-something president.

The Prime Minister does not exercise the power as figure-head monarch to abdicate and go into exile as the Queen, Prince Charles and the Windsor royal family have.

Only the people sitting on the throne have the power to shift their arse off it before it is blown off by a huge bomb or the republican army come to execute them or however else republican revolution is to be done.

On the other hand, the Prime Minister and judges and state power in the kingdom is pretty much absolute, with nothing to stop them enslaving us but our threat to wage a civil war and prosecute republican revolution.

True, a fascist republican constitution such as the Irish constitution puts citizens in a similar weak constitutional position with all power in the hands of the state and none in the hands of the people but our own natural ability to revolt and to rebel by any means available to us, irrespective of what any state and its courts demand.

While it is theoretically possible for a prime minister to do much to defend freedom the sad fact is that none of the Queen's PM have, all seem to have made the state more oppressive.

No the appointment of the prime minister is not democratic because elections in this country are rigged and undemocratic. There is no free speech, no right to protest, no fair access to broadcasting media. No matter what any legal conventions of human rights say, from Europe, the United Nations or anywhere else, the Queen's fascist courts lock up whoever they don't like, for speaking out, protesting or for nothing at all.

At elections, the kingdom presents their favourites and gives the voters a small choice between a few options all of which keep the monarchy and the kingdom's authorities pretty much in power as before.

This aim, which used to be also referred to as "putting the Queen in a council house" is an unrealistic way to proceed. If we try this method anyone who tries to get anywhere will be locked up or killed by the kingdom. Remember how those who wanted to protest against the royal wedding were locked up even before they could protest? That is how it will be.

The only way to remove the monarchy is to ask the military to take military action to remove the monarchy by all means necessary. Half-hearted measures will not work.

Republicans in the military answering the call of the nation must strike against the monarchy with full force.

We need to have a republican constitution which allows us to remove similar do-nothing or bad presidents and to elect presidents as the nations require.

Remember there could a British republic and a British president, a Scottish republic and a Scottish president. an English republic and an English republic, a Welsh republic and a Welsh president etc.

Removing the Queen does not mean there must be only one president in Buckingham Palace. There could be many presidents and many republics in place of the U.K.

[Peter Dow]

You can say "no, it changes because the president I want will hold executive power, as the President does in the USA and France. I don't want a powerless figurehead president as they have in Ireland and Germany and Italy." OK. But in that instance, the President is simply a replacement for the power wielded by the PM currently - and because ther President or PM are voted for by the same people, we get the same policies from either option.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

so where are the indications that you adhere to any principle of reciprocity...

Edited November 29, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Uncle Liam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPOrD6xfDNo

[eFestivals]

You've said that you believe in democracy, right?

Well, sorry to tell you, but 'the people' have voted and their vote says that they believe psychiatry to be a real science and not a fake one.

[eFestivals]

Queen Elizabeth is undemocratic but President Saddam Hussein was even more undemocratic than the Queen because Saddam was a fascist mass-murdering dictator of a "president".

So it is not always as simple as you say. It depends.

OK, but what is simple is....

1. the democratic view of the British people is that they don't want to be a republic.

2. the democratic view of the British people is that they are happy for cretins to be their representatives.

3. the democratic view of the British people is that they accept the scientific basis of psychiatry.

4. the democratic view of the British people is that they are happy to have fewer freedoms and not greater freedoms.

These are indisputable facts, and none of these things will be influenced in the direction you're wanting by your campaign. The exact opposite is true.

The do-nothing monarch prevents you getting a do-something president.

or alternatively, the do-nothing monarch does nothing because they have no exetutive role or power to exercise, instead hjaving given that power to a do-something democratically-elected Prime Minister, who does nothing at all differently from what any democratically-elected executive president would do in a democratic republic - because both PM and President would be elected by the same people who would want the exact same things from their democratic leader.

On the other hand, the Prime Minister and judges and state power in the kingdom is pretty much absolute, with nothing to stop them enslaving us but our threat to wage a civil war and prosecute republican revolution.

Or, just poerhaps, the threat of being removed from office by a democratic vote if they do too much against the people's wishes.

True, a fascist republican constitution such as the Irish constitution puts citizens in a similar weak constitutional position with all power in the hands of the state and none in the hands of the people but our own natural ability to revolt and to rebel by any means available to us, irrespective of what any state and its courts demand.

what part of 'the state' being the formulation of 'the people's power' has passed you by entirely? Oh, my bad, the answer is of course all of it.

While it is theoretically possible for a prime minister (or first minister of a devolved government as in Scotland) to do much to defend freedom the sad fact is that none of the Queen's PMs or FMs have, all seem to have made the state more oppressive.

which they've done with the support of 'the people' (dumb people admittedly, but that's democracy for you), not differently to how any president would have.

What part of that do you have so much difficulty understanding?

No the appointment of the prime minister is not democratic because elections in this country are rigged and undemocratic.

which you'd replace with a worse version where only those you approve of would be allowed to stand for election.

There is no free speech,

your freedom to speak here proves you wrong.

no right to protest,

the tents at St Pauls proves you wrong.

no fair access to broadcasting media.

PMSL - lesser access to broadcast media is a part of your plans for your 'utopia', via you saying you'd ban the BNP.

No matter what any legal conventions of human rights say, from Europe, the United Nations or anywhere else, the Queen's fascist courts lock up whoever they don't like, for speaking out, protesting or for nothing at all.

any part of this that might be true would not change in a republic.

[eFestivals]

No fascism is about the people accepting that they have no power in the face of the state and the established head of state must be obeyed or tolerated no matter what.

That's you, that is. Why are you too damned stupid to realise?

Democracy means government by all the people.

Except of course that only works if all the people agree about everything.

For example, the Scots are free to set up an independent nation state, a Scottish republic, if the majority of British are trying to dictate to the Scots. Don't try to stop us Scots if that is what we decide to do.

If the Scots decide to do that, will all Scots agree that's what they want to do?