Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Peter Dow


Guest Uncle Liam

Recommended Posts

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 by Peter Dow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 865
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

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? :lol::lol:

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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. :lol:

Mmmmmmm ..... fruitcake for breakfast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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. :rolleyes:

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. :lol:

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. :rolleyes:

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. :lol::lol:

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. :rolleyes:

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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. :lol::lol:

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. :lol:

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? :lol:

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

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. :lol:

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

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. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...