Peter Dow

[fred quimby]

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

_{Is this the point where Peter has to spank her and tell her she's a naughty girl,before allowing the local rugby team teach her more of a lesson, while Peter watches yelling them to teach her bad}

Edited November 25, 2011 by fred quimby

[Peter Dow]

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

Edited November 25, 2011 by Peter Dow

[eFestivals]

Sticking with Liz and Chas after her makes it highly likely that the country and the people will not get their democratic freedoms as we've never had freedom all those years she has been head of state.

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

Yes, having a monarch is undemocratic compared to a president.

But aside from that small and meaningless part - meaningless, because it's what a president or monarch DOES that counts for or against real freedoms - nothing changes. Zilch, zero, zip.

Liz has no power. She is not denying 'the people' any freedoms, because she has no power to grant or remove freedoms.

Instead, that power is exercised by the Prime Minister, who is voted for via (one of the recognised versions of) a democratic method.

So, from that, it can be deduced that it's 'the people' who are denying themselves freedoms because they're happy with what they have ... and in fact, given the support for various proposed anti-terror laws that further limit our freedoms, 'the people' would be quite happy to have fewer of them.

'The people' vote in the PM and the PM limits 'the people's freedoms with 'the people's blessing. It's very sad, but very true.

Nothing changes by making Liz & co claim standard dole. She simply gets replaced by a more expensive but similar c**t.

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.

Nothing changes by ditching Liz, not a single thing.

Why not say something interesting instead of all the empty meaningless republican bollocks?

The US president does have a regular chance to change at every election for president and must change every two elections because a president can only serve two 4-year terms at most.

And we could change our constitution so our PM's can only do that. No need for a president on that basis.

But democratic republicans don't accept the right of a constitution from hell or heaven to impose a president who is denying freedom.

something is either democratic or not. If 'the people' vote for a president or PM who says he'll restrict their freedoms, then that president is not 'imposed'.

democratic republicans say we are free to remove a president by any means necessary such as assassinating the president.

then they're not democrats, they're fascists.

Fascist republicans say "no, you must respect a constitution that is allowing a president to deny freedom, so you shouldn't ever consider assassinating the president" which would likely be the view of the US Secret Service but clearly Lee Harvey Oswald did not agree with that point of view and neither would any democratic republican although I would think most democratic republicans would disagree as I do with Oswald's decision to assassinate President Kennedy.

You really are one fucked up bunny aren't you?

You've got those the wrong way round. 'Democratic' means that the view of the majority is ALWAYS upheld. So assassinating a democratic president who is carrying out the will of the people - even if repressive - is the work of fascists.

You really are a fool.

[Peter Dow]

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

Edited November 25, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

I've got ya.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

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.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

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

How does reciprocity come into it?

[Peter Dow]

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.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

Because you're controlling and restricting who can run for government.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Purple Monkey]

This guy should get his own show.

[kaosmark2]

No in a democracy all the people are in the government because democracy means government by all the people.

What I am proposing controlling is not who should be in government because all should, even people daft enough to join and vote for the BNP if they get a chance.

But the BNP is not about getting into democratic government, it is about keeping certain people out of government. The BNP is about making government undemocratic, government by and for a subset of the people who the BNP see as fit according to, they say, who they think is "indigenous" enough.

What I am proposing is that the BNP as a political organisation be banned and if Griffin et al want to govern along with the rest of us then they should do it like democrats and support democratic political organisations and platforms though I can't see any wanting Griffin for a member he has his vote.

The fact is that the BNP's politics as undemocratic politics are not fit for a democratic political platform precisely because they want to exclude certain people from government. We can reasonably suspect that the BNP want to deny "non-indigenous" people not only their vote but also their house, their nationality, their freedom and their lives.

But even if the BNP simply do not want or intend to represent some of the people for reasons of ethnic origin or whatever this should be enough to get them banned.

My ideal is democracy. No it isn't "fascism" benevolent or otherwise.

I am completely opposed to fascism and I am opposing a particular kind of royalist fascism here which assumes that the kingdom and its monarchy, the Queen and her privy council and the officers of the state under them, the judges and the civil service, the BBC and the rest can all be trusted without an elected head of state with executive power to stop them denying freedom.

Fascism is all about trusting the state, shutting up and obeying and only voting when told to.

Democratic republicanism is about not trusting the state, expecting the state to try to deny people's freedoms and fighting to make sure that we the people can elect a head of state who can keep the state defending freedom and not denying freedom.

[future_shock]

Likewise with the Queen's courts in Scotland - it is not just that her courts disagree with people like me who might want to criticise, swear at and otherwise disrespect her university managers, politicians or police, it is that her courts want to lock up or section those who dare to do that.

So it is not that I just disagree with the Queen's courts and they with me. It is that they are insisting on jailing me when they disagree. If they disagreed with me and left me alone I would be OK with that.

I don't mind who disagrees with me and who thinks I should be polite about the queen's officers that I do not respect because they are killing innocent people with their incompetence.

Fine disagree with me. Just don't lock me up and stop me saving lives or I will be forced to fight for a republican revolution and that may mean the military shooting the Queen to get a republic.

.

[sifi]

So Dow, how long have you been on benefits for? At least five years, maybe?

Edited November 26, 2011 by sifi

[Peter Dow]

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.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

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.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Peter Dow

[kaosmark2]

Peter, care to give an example of a worthwhile President? Care to give an example of a true democracy rather than government elected for by the majority?

[feral chile]

My idea of democracy meaning government by all the people is not a warped idea. What is warped is you thinking that democracy means if the majority of people vote to treat the minority really badly, remove them from government, then that according to you is "democracy".

No "democracy" does not mean "dictatorship by the majority" nor does democracy mean "no matter what you want to vote for, however evil, then you can vote for that and get that if you win".

No "democracy" does not mean what you think it does. You are the one with the warped idea of "democracy". You have been lied to by the TV telling you lies about what "democracy" means and you are dumb enough to believe the TV I guess?

[sifi]

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.com/group/rice-for-president/message/1684

Edited November 26, 2011 by sifi

[philipsteak]

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.com/group/rice-for-president/message/1684

[sifi]

After not working for twenty years, he's essentially unemployable in anything but more menial work and should accept such a job and for once give something back instead of everyone paying for the roof over his head and the food in ample belly.

The thousands of pounds that he's leeched out of the system could have been used for the benefit of all.

He's part of the problem, just like the royals he despises.

Edited November 26, 2011 by sifi

[Peter Dow]

None of that is true.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

Be careful Peter

http://thehiberniati...-20-years/13188

Edited November 27, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

Here he is on steroids smoking a spliff.

[Peter Dow]

If an MP's voters are mostly drunks maybe a drunk is an appropriate representative, but if an MP's voters are mostly racists a racist isn't an appropriate representative?

Edited November 27, 2011 by Peter Dow

[Peter Dow]

votes around the world show this idea does not work. Votes around the world shows that this idea leads to greater corruption.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Peter Dow