Royal birth

Discussion in 'U.K.' started by Deleted member 157313, Jul 22, 2013.

  1. Wolfman's Brother

    Wolfman's Brother Member

    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    6
    why?


    It's an free speech forum and I hate those "royal" scums.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIdcDL64KCE"]Crass - Big A Little A - YouTube

    :daisy:

    Peace
     
  2. unedited

    unedited Member

    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Putting to one side your apparent ignorance of your rights and responisibilites as a citizen (seriously, you seriously have a problem understanding your rights and responsibilities? No, it's just cheap rhetorical tricks... empty games...)

    But let's take an example of a nation that HAS got a written constitution, because your argument is that once a constitution is written down it solves everything in society.

    The USA. And what do we find? That even though the constitution is written down, everyone has a different idea of what it means anyway. It's discussed, debated, argued over in courts of law... wilfully misinterpreted at every turn. They've discovered to their great great cost, that trying to codify every part of a constitution into clear, concise language is an impossible, Sisyphean task. It's a futile attempt at squaring a circle.

    Trying to codify the rules of society in an absolute document is short-sighted, naive, futile... as well as being totally counterproductive to your ideals. It causes more problems than it solves.

    I'm more than comfortable accepting that large parts of our constitution are simply 'understood'. The constitution is represented by the Crown, but it exists in society. We are the constitution (we are the state). We cannot be written. We constantly change. We are human.


    Oh I see, because the USA has such a better record than the UK on inequality in society. Mmmm hmmm. Must be their written constitution that makes the difference eh?

    So you want a society as equal as they have in America. Pardon me if I'd rather not. :)

    But they're not allowed to become directly involved, that's the point - and the moment the monarch became directly involved in the political debate, people like you would have an apoplectic stroke.

    It is certainly NOT 'condoned by the monarch'. Or if you know better, post a link to somewhere I can read where the Queen's statement 'condoning' their behaviour.

    Yep, Prime Minister has an audience with the Queen, it ensures he (or she) has a weekly reminder of the fact they're meant to be serving the nation (represented by the monarch).

    WE are ALL part of the establishment. Can I abolish you, because I'm blaming you for the ils of society? (No seriously, can I? Please?)

    The conservatismrepresented by the monarchy is a wish not to make changes to society too fast. It's very different from modern 'ultra'/neo conservatism - a desire to destroy society as we know it, abolish the monarchy and enslave the population. Maybe you might think about that paragon of an ideal socialist communal republic - the USA - again. (note, I'm not Yank bashing. Just right wing republican Yank bashing... and hey, on a tangential riff, what do we find? the very worst of neocon America call themselves Republicans... what's in a name huh?)(lmao)

    'Provide a link to the unwritten constitution'... yes, well I think that sums up your approach to debate. Give me a link to democracy, or that doesn't exist. Give me a link to society, or that doesn't exist. Give me a link to justice, or that doesn't exist. Give me a link to family, or that doesn't exist. Give me a link to humanity, or that doesn't exist.

    Give me a link to your human soul...

    I can provide links for none of these, yet make no apologies for believing that every last one 'exists'.

    :2thumbsup:
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice