ov[er 50% of the population approves of the monarchy in a fair, free election] the monarchy is undemocratic. wwell apparently different rules apply to monarchs than they do taxes since i dont remember ever voting for the estate tax
Printable View
ov[er 50% of the population approves of the monarchy in a fair, free election] the monarchy is undemocratic. wwell apparently different rules apply to monarchs than they do taxes since i dont remember ever voting for the estate tax
that referendum was a failure before it was even started, most people know that the power the governor general holds over the prime minister is very important so they cant do bullshit like obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Doli
yes she can gut the government at her leisure and is empowered to do so based on who's snatch she was born out of and/or who she fucked, and you're actually in here defending that systemQuote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Doli
when australia gave papua new guinea independence everyone thought that they would become independent as a republic, and the australian government even drafted up constitutions and shit for them, but the papuans were like no we want the queen. south africa became a republic in the 1960s in a whites-only referendum in order to get away from the governor general's interference with the discrimination against blacks (apartheid).
I respect efficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Doli
Doli and Barry are good trained brainwashed slaves. Just like the Queen wants. Idiot subjects.
http://i.imgur.com/wGiW8.gif
marco is a good brainwashed republic fag, just like the murican edumacation system wants. redneck.
:insertlaughingsmileyhere:
youre literally mouthing back the words that you were taught in kindergarten about how democracy = good and hereditary = bad while completely failing to see that the queen rules solely by the permission of the people over whom she is sovereign and at any time they could vote to remove her. further, the queen constitutionally can NOT gut the government at will - the governor-general can, yes, but the governor-general is actually appointed by the queen on the advice of the prime minister, which means in effect that it is the prime minister appointing the governor-general.Quote:
Originally Posted by maks
constitutionally the british parliament could vote and say that all scots will be slaughtered effective tomorrow and yes i am defending that system because custom mandate and tradition dictates that they do not, nor does the queen ever get involved except in the most drastic of emergencies (read: hitler killing everyone)
barry your entire country is at the mercy of one woman who doesn't even live there. that doesn't seem wrong to you?
i would probably bow down to the queen and tell her i think shes doing great and maybe say she has nice hair today and that she looks really young and hope that she somehow lets me into her pants
and when i blow in her i would scream GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
websites like this are good fun to read http://home.earthlink.net/~loveguru/namoil.htm
they're written in the same style that ruby makes his megathreads
Are you even listening to yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Doli
like I said. Barry masturbated away what little brains he had.
http://i.imgur.com/wGiW8.gif
maybe you should try actually reading the australian constitution since it's not at her mercy at all and the queen actually can not intervene in the affairs of the Australian Commonwealth at all - and i mean even in the worst emergency, she couldn't - funnily enough constitutionally that role is reserved to her representative, the governor-general, who is appointed by the prime minister - just as the president of many republics is appointed by parliament. all power rests with the governor-general and the queen could not take it from him or her if she tried (this is all legal, by the way). youre honestly spouting some really uninformed bullshitQuote:
Originally Posted by maks
the governor general keeps the prime minister in check, thats a better system than just having a president who can do pretty much what he wants when ever he wants without someone telling him he cant fuck everyone by going to war for no reason.
the queen can not refuse the advice of the prime minister in appointing a governor-general. the prime minister, for all intents and purposes, appoints the governor-generalQuote:
Originally Posted by maks
the house and the senate can prevent the president from doing much of anythingQuote:
Originally Posted by marks98
and hows that working, whats with all those executive orders obama is doing lol
I hope the Chinese invade and fuck you all in the ass.
http://i.imgur.com/wGiW8.gif
I understand the concept, I was asking if you realize how stupid it all soundsQuote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Doli
you honestly need to get a much better understanding of how the westminster system works, the role of the "Crown" in parliament, etc, since most of what you're saying is just complete misinformation. for instance, all executive power rests with the queen but in reality it rests with the prime minister and his cabinet. you, by the way, dont get to bounce back and forth between calling her useless and the calling her an evil tyrant who can destroy the australian government at a moments notice
my god Doli. They're all puppets. You ass.
the war in Iraq wasnt started because the president went "fuck everyone" and went to war with no reason; there was actually a vote to go to war that went through congress and passed... When a bunch of old fucks get together in a room, the big argument boils down to a word game, and the big argument in that vote essentially boiled down to whether or not Iraq even had rockets or other aerial devices capable of hitting another country, and intelligence reports on that were basically a big "I don't know, but we think so probably, maybe, I'd put money on it" - those intelligence reports were given to congress under the bush administration, mind youQuote:
Originally Posted by marks98
it's not honestly any more stupid than george w. bush winning less than 50% of the popular vote and yet winning the electionQuote:
Originally Posted by maks
dude... taht can happen to either of us... we're in the same boat nd if that happens i hope the western countries band togetherQuote:
Originally Posted by Marco
im gonna go worship the queen at my monarchy shrine cya guys later
first of all junkie it wasnt a vote to go to war, there was no iraq war and the last "war" the united states was in was the second world war. also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution read the second paragraph for a good example of the house and senate keeping the president in checkQuote:
Originally Posted by Plug Drugs
I agree. Electoral collage needs to go to. But monarchies first, they've been a problem longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentleman Doli