British Republicanism | |
Prostetnik User ID: 1345680 Canada 12/03/2012 02:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 28383150 Germany 12/03/2012 02:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28943942 Canada 12/03/2012 03:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 8449454 Australia 12/03/2012 03:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1711362 Canada 12/03/2012 03:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Maybe British cunts should have been thankful for their own country and stayed in it instead of spawning their evil into everyone elses land. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8449454 The motherfuckers then whinge about foreign immigration . Exactly! What happened to those 100 million native Indians of Canada and America. lol! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 21689021 United Kingdom 12/03/2012 03:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Mr. Deadite User ID: 16214891 United States 12/03/2012 03:44 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 27161048 United Kingdom 12/03/2012 03:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28766502 United Kingdom 12/03/2012 03:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
NSF001 User ID: 28914713 United Kingdom 12/03/2012 08:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Maybe British cunts should have been thankful for their own country and stayed in it instead of spawning their evil into everyone elses land. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8449454 The motherfuckers then whinge about foreign immigration . Hey, I think somebody forgot toe tell you.... I don't think so, he's up there with the others laying low, vying with those who you've traded your life to to bless your soul, |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 25812940 Canada 12/03/2012 08:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Maybe British cunts should have been thankful for their own country and stayed in it instead of spawning their evil into everyone elses land. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8449454 The motherfuckers then whinge about foreign immigration . What's this rubbish...Damn ex convicts, we should had kept Aussie land as a penal colony, not the penis colony it is today!! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 8449454 Australia 12/03/2012 08:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Maybe British cunts should have been thankful for their own country and stayed in it instead of spawning their evil into everyone elses land. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 8449454 The motherfuckers then whinge about foreign immigration . What's this rubbish...Damn ex convicts, we should had kept Aussie land as a penal colony, not the penis colony it is today!! It doesn't matter if I'm the descendant of a convict. My statement is valid and conclusive. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 14317225 Netherlands 12/03/2012 08:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
071676 User ID: 28709102 United States 12/03/2012 09:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "What we want Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28383150 A democratic Britain with an elected head of state Republicans campaign for the abolition of the monarchy, an elected head of state and a new democratic constitution that really puts power in the hands of voters. We want to reform Britain's politics so it is genuinely democratic. We want a new constitution - a new set of rules for our political system - that puts power in your hands. We want voters to be able to elect their head of state - instead of having a 'job-for-life' monarch. We want to give voters more power over parliament and parliament more control over government. We want a head of state that has a meaningful role and who can be held to account on their record in office. We want Britain to be a republic. Why get rid of the monarchy? Hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle. And because we can't hold the Queen and her family to account at the ballot box, there's nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money. Meanwhile, the monarchy gives vast unchecked power to the government, shutting out the people from major decisions that affect the national interest. Expensive, unaccountable and a drag on our democratic process, the monarchy is a broken institution. A head of state that's chosen by us could really represent our hopes and aspirations - and stop politicians exceeding their powers. What's so good about a republic A new constitution based on democratic values - not medieval ones - could give voters real power over their politicians and enshrine in our society ideas about the democratic rights of the people. A republic is more than just an elected head of state: it's a new way of doing politics that is centred around the power of the people. A new set of rules and reformed institutions would give voters more power of parliament (and importantly would limit the power of parliament over the people!)" [link to www.republic.org.uk] It is the dream of most people to live free. That said, how many people are actually willing to pay the cost of that freedom? Want to dissolve the monarchy? Dissolve the House of Lords? Do away with the rigid class system? Make everyone equal, only some more equal that others? That is NOT a Republic. That is Communism. A Republic requires commitment. A Republic is not a democratic form of government, it is a representative form of government. It also means giving extreme power to a few over the many, with the hope that the few will limit their power. Do not ever give the keys to a candy store, and then order the child to only take one piece of candy. A constitution that shall limit the power of the few over the many sounds like a dream come true. That is until a few of the few decide that the constitution is an "impediment" to their power. The real problem with a republic form of government in Britain is, too many have lived off of the social programs that trying to actually fend for themselves is beyond their control. With the socialist form that is currently in control in Britain, it allows too many to be served by too few. How many people would actually vote in favor of getting less, when getting more is so much easier? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 28977093 Germany 12/03/2012 10:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "What we want Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28383150 A democratic Britain with an elected head of state Republicans campaign for the abolition of the monarchy, an elected head of state and a new democratic constitution that really puts power in the hands of voters. We want to reform Britain's politics so it is genuinely democratic. We want a new constitution - a new set of rules for our political system - that puts power in your hands. We want voters to be able to elect their head of state - instead of having a 'job-for-life' monarch. We want to give voters more power over parliament and parliament more control over government. We want a head of state that has a meaningful role and who can be held to account on their record in office. We want Britain to be a republic. Why get rid of the monarchy? Hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle. And because we can't hold the Queen and her family to account at the ballot box, there's nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money. Meanwhile, the monarchy gives vast unchecked power to the government, shutting out the people from major decisions that affect the national interest. Expensive, unaccountable and a drag on our democratic process, the monarchy is a broken institution. A head of state that's chosen by us could really represent our hopes and aspirations - and stop politicians exceeding their powers. What's so good about a republic A new constitution based on democratic values - not medieval ones - could give voters real power over their politicians and enshrine in our society ideas about the democratic rights of the people. A republic is more than just an elected head of state: it's a new way of doing politics that is centred around the power of the people. A new set of rules and reformed institutions would give voters more power of parliament (and importantly would limit the power of parliament over the people!)" [link to www.republic.org.uk] It is the dream of most people to live free. That said, how many people are actually willing to pay the cost of that freedom? Want to dissolve the monarchy? Dissolve the House of Lords? Do away with the rigid class system? Make everyone equal, only some more equal that others? That is NOT a Republic. That is Communism. A Republic requires commitment. A Republic is not a democratic form of government, it is a representative form of government. It also means giving extreme power to a few over the many, with the hope that the few will limit their power. Do not ever give the keys to a candy store, and then order the child to only take one piece of candy. A constitution that shall limit the power of the few over the many sounds like a dream come true. That is until a few of the few decide that the constitution is an "impediment" to their power. The real problem with a republic form of government in Britain is, too many have lived off of the social programs that trying to actually fend for themselves is beyond their control. With the socialist form that is currently in control in Britain, it allows too many to be served by too few. How many people would actually vote in favor of getting less, when getting more is so much easier? In other words: You don't want freedom, because you think people are too stupid. I can see where you are coming from. |