June 16, 200916 yr Don't forget, if something happens to William (and under the current constitution that includes him marrying a Catholic), the waste of space that is Harry will get the job one day. Yeah, the Nazi-saluting, exam cheating, little racist Royal ginger-bollocked b'astard (I stil remain CONVINCED that James Hewitt is the daddy, where else is the little c/unt gonna get GINGER HAIR... :lol: :lol: ).
June 16, 200916 yr Scott you and my late dad would have gotten along famously. He was the most anti-Royal person I've ever met in my life. Reading some of your posts just makes me giggle because it makes me think of some of his quotes whenever a Royal popped up on the telly. :lol: 'Right Mary, here comes Lizzie. You stand up now for the English Queen' 'Oh look, the flag's fleeing in Parasite Manor' 'There he is. Flip the Greek' :lol: :lol: Yeah, we could've had a few pints down the pub and just slagged off the Royals all night...... :lol: So, did your dad, like me, think that Harry was actually Hewitt's kid then.....? ;)
June 16, 200916 yr I think Harry's Hewitt's kid but why don't they have a DNA cos he shouldn't be in his place in the line of succession if he's not Charls' son?
June 16, 200916 yr Maybe they already did one :unsure: To be fair, Diana's brother and sister have red hair. :P
June 16, 200916 yr Sadly, I must disappear in a second but I'm a Royalist who thinks the UK becoming a Republic would be an unmitigated disaster because time and again the "court of public opinion" have proved that they are utterly clueless, and easily manipulated by the likes of Rupert Murdoch Inc and Max Clifford. However, you know my opinions on Harry and whom his father is: http://sxolsout.110mb.com/index_files/Harry_Hewitt.jpg Like the infamous Marianne Faithful/Mick Jagger Mars Bar incident that never actually happened, we'd like to think it is true, however Diana's brother and sister are "strawberry blondes". I like the idea of having an unelected, powerless symbolic family as the figureheads of state. Who frequently make haphazard cockups because they are a symbolic buffer between the House of Parliament having full power over the country. Certainly better than a President Thatcher or President Blair when they've become too unpopular to govern the country they can be shipped out to the President's role. Then when the new Prime Minister is not doing so well, the media can whip the gullible public into a post Diana death fevour and lead for the President to take power to lead us down the dictatorial route just like the one time we had it before in the 17th century under Cromwell. But I guess you think otherwise, and I'll stick to my Orwellian beliefs about human nature, and why I have a natural arms length distrust about people in power and authority.
June 16, 200916 yr As much as I dislike Mrs T or Tony B-Liar, people actually VOTED for them, they didn't vote for a King or a Queen..... And seeing as how all a bloody Monarch does is just sit there and rubber stamp everything anyway, and doesn't actually have any power, exactly what fukkin' purpose does it serve....? It's purely ceremonial, utterly meaningless and belongs to the dark ages when we perhaps did need Monarchs to run things.. But, hey, guess what...? We EVOLVED and grew out of the need for unelected chumps lording it over us..... Do you actually realise what a totally fukkin' SECTARIAN AND RACIST institution the Royal Family actually is....? Phil the Bloody DUKE OF EDINBURGH constantly puts his foot in it by spouting the sort of racist cr@p that we regularly round upon the BNP for saying, oh, but it's okay, it's just Phil innit...? He's a hoot.... :rolleyes: Fukk off..... <_< And Sectarian...?? You betcha.... If one of the Royal Princes decided to marry a CATHOLIC, they'd have to give up their claim to the throne.... I mean, FFS!!!!!! What a load of utter fukkin' MEDIEVAL CR@P which belongs to the bloody reign of Henry VIII..... And this still hasn't been written off the statute books..... And, er, Scotland has how many practicing or lapsed Catholics again......? I'm very much one of the latter, I hate the Catholic chuch, but you 'd better believe I still find that very, very offensive that a British Institution can be so baldly bloody Sectarian and actually get away with it.... There's no way in HELL the Royals would get away with saying William and Harry wouldn't be allowed to marry a Muslim or a JEW, they'd be utterly crucified in the arena of public opinion and the media.... If you're Scottish and you like the Royals you're clearly a Blue Nose Orange Lodger aren't you......? :rolleyes: :P You may regard that as a jokey comment. I don't. I just think it's plain rude. We're adults. We have different points of view. There is no need to descend to personal attack even in jest, if that's what it's supposed to be. I hate football and I am ecumenical. I don't care if a Catholic occupies the throne just so long as all religions retain the legal right to worship in peace. The Stuarts were all Catholic and yes I know there was persecution then but that was the norm in those unenlightened days, not just in these islands. We ought to have learned something from the past. I don't believe that the monarch should be the head of one religion and I applaud Charles for wanting to change that to be more inclusive. I treat everyone alike. I don't ask what religion or race they are. Nearly half of the living members of my extended family are Catholics and I go to their places of worship to celebrate their special days with them. Nevertheless I do have an opinion about sectarianism. IMHO The first step to getting rid of sectarianism in the West of Scotland would be to educate our children together instead of segregating them by religion at the age of 5.
June 17, 200916 yr Sadly, I must disappear in a second but I'm a Royalist who thinks the UK becoming a Republic would be an unmitigated disaster because time and again the "court of public opinion" have proved that they are utterly clueless, and easily manipulated by the likes of Rupert Murdoch Inc and Max Clifford. However, you know my opinions on Harry and whom his father is: Like the infamous Marianne Faithful/Mick Jagger Mars Bar incident that never actually happened, we'd like to think it is true, however Diana's brother and sister are "strawberry blondes". I like the idea of having an unelected, powerless symbolic family as the figureheads of state. Who frequently make haphazard cockups because they are a symbolic buffer between the House of Parliament having full power over the country. Certainly better than a President Thatcher or President Blair when they've become too unpopular to govern the country they can be shipped out to the President's role. Then when the new Prime Minister is not doing so well, the media can whip the gullible public into a post Diana death fevour and lead for the President to take power to lead us down the dictatorial route just like the one time we had it before in the 17th century under Cromwell. But I guess you think otherwise, and I'll stick to my Orwellian beliefs about human nature, and why I have a natural arms length distrust about people in power and authority. There's one simple way to prove it mate.... Get Harry and Chuck to have DNA tests and make the results public.... I dont see why I should have to pay taxes to keep someone I seriously think is a little Royal B/astard...... He's certainly a little Racist B/astard, taking after "Grandad Phil" almost certainly...... How on earth can anyone who's a "commoner" possibly respond to the third in line to the fukkin' throne when he "jokes" about calling him a "p@ki"....? Answer - He cant.... He just has to take it regardless of what his true feelings might be to "fit in", and it's an absolute crock of sh!t to make excuses for Harry's behaviour, IMO..... The Royal family are a relic of a bygone age, they are irrelevant in our society.... I think your opinions on an Elected President are frankly ludicrous, this isn't the 17th Century, and that simply wouldn't happen these days, and, yeah no KING in our history has acted like a tyrant have they Richard (**cough, cough** Henry VIII **cough**)?... It hasn't exactly happened in France any time in the past, oooh, 100 years or so, has it....? And Germany seems to be doing pretty okay with its Chancellor and NO "Kaisers" anymore... You can blame Cromwell all you want, but he basically acted no differently to any other "monarch" in reality... He never even called himself "prime minister" he called himself "Lord Protector", a rather gradiose, almost Monarchical title.... He almost certainly fancied himself a totally unaccountable authority figure, like a King or an Emperor, he just gave himself a different title, but the effect was the same..... I'm an Structural Anarchist at the end of the day - I believe totally that the thoroughly rottern and corrupt system in this country needs to be destroyed and a new one built up from scratch, and one in which the apparatus of the State benefits the people and not the other way round with the people being subject to the State or a Monarch - Parliament and its representatives should serve US, bottom line....
June 17, 200916 yr Nevertheless I do have an opinion about sectarianism. IMHO The first step to getting rid of sectarianism in the West of Scotland would be to educate our children together instead of segregating them by religion at the age of 5. Bottom line - if you support the Royals, you either indirectly or tacitly support Sectarianism...... There's just absolutely no getting round that fact.... You cannot make excuses for the fact that the structure of the Royal Family discrimates very, very clearly against Catholics hundreds of years after the "unenlightened times", just WHY is it that this piece of archaic law pertaining to ascendancy has never been repealed in 400 years, absolutely NONE of you monarchists have actually answered that question. If Charles is so much about being multi-faith and "inclusive", then presumably HE must have some sort of opinion on it, and yet his silence is absolutely deafening, it was one of his bloody antecedents who put it into English law ffs..... If this were to be done against an ethnic group such as Asian people or Blacks, you wouldn't support it, simple as.... But because it's against a church, and its followers, it's perfectly acceptable to you is it....? Well, okay, let's replace 'Catholic' with 'Jew', and see which road that takes us down..... -_- Just for the record, I actually agree with doing away with religious schools.... ALL religious schools, not just in Strathclyde and the surrounding area.... I'm firmly of the opinion that all schools should be secular in their makeup and teaching practices.....
June 17, 200916 yr While Grimly makes some very good points. The thought of Alex Salmond getting within a billion lightyears of a job title "Head Of State" makes me want to throw up my lunch and flee. As much as they are a pain in the arse that need to go, i would vote for them to stay to keep scrawny cuntboy away from ever having a job title that resembles head of state. I'd leave an independent Scotland, my idea of a political nightmare is to see that vile excuse for a party with more power, real power :puke: I'd rather see the torrie's in power up north than Salmond and his band of anti english dickwanks.
June 17, 200916 yr While Grimly makes some very good points. The thought of Alex Salmond getting within a billion lightyears of a job title "Head Of State" makes me want to throw up my lunch and flee. As much as they are a pain in the arse that need to go, i would vote for them to stay to keep scrawny cuntboy away from ever having a job title that resembles head of state. I'd leave an independent Scotland, my idea of a political nightmare is to see that vile excuse for a party with more power, real power :puke: I'd rather see the torrie's in power up north than Salmond and his band of anti english dickwanks. I wouldn't so much object to Salmond or Swinney being an Elected President, so long as it was modelled on the US system where you'd only be allowed the job for two terms of office and then you're gone.... No, my problem would be if Salmond or Swinney gifting themselves some kind of permanent "Lord Protector" or "Grand Vizier of all He Surveys" type of title in which we couldn't get rid of the c/unt...... What we'd need is something like a House of Representatives and an Upper House like the Senate... I mean, I know that Bush Jr was a c**t, but in his final couple of years look at the amount of sh!t he had to go through to even get half the things he wanted to get done.... By the end, Bush Jr was an extremely weakened President because of the system and he seriously struggled to get any of his legislation through.... So, who needs monarchs.....? The US, for all its faults, seems to function perfectly well without one.... And I just wonder for how much longer, the Australians are going to allow themselves to be subjects of the crown.... I wouldn't be at all surprised if they made the decision to seceed from the Commonwealth after Liz cacks it.....
June 17, 200916 yr Australia has said no at least twice at public referendums. From what i gather i don't think it is an aim of the Rudd administration to have another referendum in the near future. Obviously who knows what'll happen when Rudd steps down or fails to get re-elected [unlikely in the near future considering his government dodged the recession]
June 17, 200916 yr Australia has said no at least twice at public referendums. From what i gather i don't think it is an aim of the Rudd administration to have another referendum in the near future. I think the Aussies have voted no more because it's Liz on the throne... I just wonder if those referendums would've gone the same way if it had been Chuck.... :rolleyes:
June 17, 200916 yr There's one simple way to prove it mate.... Get Harry and Chuck to have DNA tests and make the results public.... I dont see why I should have to pay taxes to keep someone I seriously think is a little Royal B/astard...... He's certainly a little Racist B/astard, taking after "Grandad Phil" almost certainly...... How on earth can anyone who's a "commoner" possibly respond to the third in line to the fukkin' throne when he "jokes" about calling him a "p@ki"....? Answer - He cant.... He just has to take it regardless of what his true feelings might be to "fit in", and it's an absolute crock of sh!t to make excuses for Harry's behaviour, IMO..... The Royal family are a relic of a bygone age, they are irrelevant in our society.... I think your opinions on an Elected President are frankly ludicrous, this isn't the 17th Century, and that simply wouldn't happen these days, and, yeah no KING in our history has acted like a tyrant have they Richard (**cough, cough** Henry VIII **cough**)?... It hasn't exactly happened in France any time in the past, oooh, 100 years or so, has it....? And Germany seems to be doing pretty okay with its Chancellor and NO "Kaisers" anymore... You can blame Cromwell all you want, but he basically acted no differently to any other "monarch" in reality... He never even called himself "prime minister" he called himself "Lord Protector", a rather gradiose, almost Monarchical title.... He almost certainly fancied himself a totally unaccountable authority figure, like a King or an Emperor, he just gave himself a different title, but the effect was the same..... I'm an Structural Anarchist at the end of the day - I believe totally that the thoroughly rottern and corrupt system in this country needs to be destroyed and a new one built up from scratch, and one in which the apparatus of the State benefits the people and not the other way round with the people being subject to the State or a Monarch - Parliament and its representatives should serve US, bottom line.... Oh dear, oh dear. Where to start: Firstly, as I expect you fully well know, but choose to ignore as it destroys your argument and that used by the UK tabloids run by the Monarchist hating Rupert Murdoch, that "P@ki" was a mate of Harry's in the Army barracks was calling him a "Bast@rd Kraut", as it is part of that culture to give each other insulting politically incorrect nicknames.... I was (as I expect you damn well know except it destroys your argument) was talking about the UK constitution since 1688 when the unpopular Catholic King James II fled the country and the House Of Parliament took power to affectively when about setting up the current constitution that exists today thanks to Standing Order 66 (1713) which means empowering Ministers with sole financial initiative to govern the country; whilst the Monarchy exists as a purely figurehead status. Let's just compare that to Germany where the Kaiser's were replaced by a chancellor & head of state which saw the rise of a certain chancellor Adolf Hitler and a certain National Socialist German Workers Party take power and the rest is ahem ... history. Oh, and no revolutions in France in the last hundred years .... well on a technicality you are correct. But my goodness there so easily could have been with the 1917 French Army Mutinees and 51 years later the unrest in Paris and northern France in May-June 1968 (very similar to what failed in China 1989), both of these two social unrests led to constitutional crisis that makes the Poll Tax riots look like a nice quiet childrens party. :lol: Then there is the American system that in the last 40 years has allowed a certain Richard Nixon & George W Bush take power, whilst remaining under the thumb of the utterly corrupt Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Directors (stand up and be counted J Edgar Hoover and currently Robert Swan Mueller III) who are the guys who are really running the country (because if you think Barrack Obama is in charge of the USA right now then I have clearly overrated your intelligence) ...... whilst played out and manipulated by the powerful media multi national companies currently run by Robert Maxwell's all powerful News Corporation. :rofl: Still if you think the US Constitution is great then surely you approve of the Vietnam War and the War in Iraq and Afganistan. Which was supported by both congresses. ;) Well I guess a structural anarchist makes you yearn for the totalitarianism and "doublespeak" of George Orwell's Animal Farm & Nineteen Eighty-Four novels to come to life then. :lol: Well count me out. I'm quite frankly happy with the constitution as it is; other than the fact that I personally think we should withdraw from the EU gravy train that we are paying for & if the Scots really want to have their own country then let them have it and pick up for the net £26.8 billion per annum that the English taxpayer is paying for without having a say in what they do or gaining the benefit of free University fees and Perscription charges that us English still have to pay for & take Gordon Brown back with you; and then we'll call Andrew Murray a Scot even when he wins. :P As for me to quote George Orwell "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism as I understand it." & ".. Much as I despise and at times despair about the existence of the Royal Family. There is something faintly reassuring about its continued existence, that is decided purely by birth right, and not on the whim of the public or the state." Apologies for this glib, and flippant post but quite frankly you started it. (Now for the serious point): The bottom line is if you give an human some degree of power and control, then the chances are that they will manipulate it for their own benefits. This is precisely why I like the UK constitution not to be a Republic because that is precisely the thing that will be manipulated and abused. Or do you think the House of Parliament are doing such a good job, we need another consitution which is paid for by the British taxpayer which makes the funding of the Royal Family seem "cheap as chips" in comparison. Lastly, if you want a Republican President to replace the monarchy, then I think I'd better point you to the Mori poll carried out in 2008 when asked who we would like as a President of State: 1st Margaret Thatcher 32%; 2nd Tony Blair 27%; 3rd Richard Branson 14%; 4th Simon Cowell 11% ......... So do you really, really want a President Thatcher or President Blair instead of Queen Elizabeth II??????? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A slave begins by demanding justice And ends by wanting to wear a crown.." French philosopher Albert Camus (in case you thought it was Nicky Wire).
June 17, 200916 yr Australia has said no at least twice at public referendums. From what i gather i don't think it is an aim of the Rudd administration to have another referendum in the near future. Obviously who knows what'll happen when Rudd steps down or fails to get re-elected [unlikely in the near future considering his government dodged the recession] I think it's only once rather than at least twice. And on that occasion voters had the choice between continuing with a monarchy or a president elected by parliament. If they'd been given the chance to vote for a president elected by all Australians, Australia would be a republic by now.
June 17, 200916 yr While Grimly makes some very good points. The thought of Alex Salmond getting within a billion lightyears of a job title "Head Of State" makes me want to throw up my lunch and flee. As much as they are a pain in the arse that need to go, i would vote for them to stay to keep scrawny cuntboy away from ever having a job title that resembles head of state. I'd leave an independent Scotland, my idea of a political nightmare is to see that vile excuse for a party with more power, real power :puke: I'd rather see the torrie's in power up north than Salmond and his band of anti english dickwanks. For someone who's not currently living in Scotland, my you seem to hate it. Its people like you that mouth of about Scotland we can do without. You say you hate the SNP, fair enough but they are the elected Government atm. Who would you vote for instead then, Labour...well they had 8 years and were $h!te, thats why they got turfed out. Tory, are you havin a laugh. Greens.......yeah right, Lib Dems so-so. The reason the SNP beat Labour is simple, Scotland tends to vote for the left, and the Labour party are on the right of the SNP atm. Of course Salmond is a smarmy git, I wouldn't invite him round for tea either, but hey he knows how to play to the masses. Labour will get thumped in Scotland if there was an election tomorrow. If you don't want to live up here, fine but stop moaning about it, just do it.
June 18, 200916 yr I think it's only once rather than at least twice. And on that occasion voters had the choice between continuing with a monarchy or a president elected by parliament. If they'd been given the chance to vote for a president elected by all Australians, Australia would be a republic by now. As far as i have been told by my flatmates it's twice. But from what i've been told, they were both quite a bit ago. For someone who's not currently living in Scotland, my you seem to hate it. Its people like you that mouth of about Scotland we can do without. You say you hate the SNP, fair enough but they are the elected Government atm. Who would you vote for instead then, Labour...well they had 8 years and were $h!te, thats why they got turfed out. Tory, are you havin a laugh. Greens.......yeah right, Lib Dems so-so. The reason the SNP beat Labour is simple, Scotland tends to vote for the left, and the Labour party are on the right of the SNP atm. Of course Salmond is a smarmy git, I wouldn't invite him round for tea either, but hey he knows how to play to the masses. Labour will get thumped in Scotland if there was an election tomorrow. If you don't want to live up here, fine but stop moaning about it, just do it.I'm due back in Scotland on July 5th. I am currently undertaking in a University Exchange which has taken me away for a semester. I live under the SNP, they have done one really beneficial thing for me since they got to power and that was to kill the graduate endowment fee. I would vote for the Liberal Democrats, and that is who has won my region for as long as i have been alive. Longer in fact when it comes to the Westminster seat. My MP is Sir Ming C, the former Lib Dem leader. I have english parents, i was declared to have English nationality at birth. I grew up north of the border with an english accent. It wasn't easy in the slightest. I do doubt you'd have any idea what it is like to be on the end of the love stuff i was, so i do apologise if you don't like my resentment to the Scum of Scotland. I have only just turned old enough to vote, i was too young at the last election. I never asked for 8years of Labour. North or South of the border. I can't leave Scotland, i have a University course to finish. If they get their way and independence comes through. I have questions. I honestly don't see how it would work. If that man does nothing to answer my questions i'd leave when i could afford to and when my course was finished. I don't want to leave the place where i grew up, despite the hideous weather, i love the area i grew up in. It's perfect. I got a great upbringing and i am quite glad my dad came out of the RAF when and where he did. I'm happy living in Dundee/Fife, but i am deeply unhappy with the arsehole in charge. They have been full of broken promises and still their support grows. I just don't think all these people who are attracted to an independent Scotland quite realise the implications. Providing he stays in the EU [which i think he will, as i gather he is pro-euro] then i'm happy to call Scotland my home country over England/Germany. That doesn't mean i'll stay, and it doesn't mean Salmond is the only reason i'd leave. You don't know me all that well, so i'll tell you something that is key to my view point. I'm 19, 20 in less than a week. I currently have been bitten hard by the travel bug, i want to travel europe and live in many places around the world right now. As most people my age do. And i very much resent the accusation that i mouth of about Scotland. I am highly critical of the dick in charge. I have never said a bad word about the area i grew up in. I had some amazing times towards the end of high school with my small group of friends. Many of whom i went to uni with. Without being brought up where i was i wouldn't known some amazing people and i'm thankful for that. And Cupar is a f***ing amazing town. Just so we are clear. It's not the country, it's the SNP i hate.
Create an account or sign in to comment