He should be boiled in his own snot!

Originally Posted by Bell206

...On another side why don't you pledge an oath to the country and not the Government of the day or the Royal family....

Interesting point. My loyalty isn't to a piece of land (although there was once a very pretty hill...) ; the thought of loyalty to a political party I find grotesque, and when I walk to my sometime lodgings in 'Soweto' (Elephant and Castle) or listen to the BBC NI news I lose most of my love for what Great Britain has become.

So to what should my ultimate loyalty be given? My family and friends, then my employer (but only so long as the bonus comes in), then the constitutional head of state, seems to be the answer (if I went further than that I would almost certainly be in contravention of the Race Relations Gibberish of whenever).

Anyway, I believe that as a credible head of state HM the Q outshines every single other candidate throughout the civilised world; a lot of that credibility has assuredly rubbed off on Chuck. Even if his choice of squeeze has been dodgy on occasion.

/burble

The equivalent cost of just three cruise missiles? Bargain!

Originally Posted by Dunservin

The equivalent cost of just three cruise missiles? Bargain!

I know....and to think you can only use each missile once.....

HM, The Prince of Wales, just keeps on touring....

Just think, half a dozen Royal visits in quick order and some smaller Countries would be broke...... Much nicer than bombing them...

Originally Posted by Doylie45

He should be boiled in his own snot!

Shut the door behind you w@anker

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Originally Posted by Biped

Oh I do beg your pardon. Clinton DIDN'T do that, nor did Berlusconi, and they aren't 'Presidents' elected in a democracy.

Feel better?

Going to add anything else to the debate?

Apart from to say that Billy Bongo's arguments are more rational and calm than your lower-lipped wobbling rants and are, I think, designed to stimulate sensible discussion, not clitoral wobbles on every answer from you, sweetlips. And, as it happens, I tend to agree with him/her/it.

Fawning bumlicker - love it and might have to adopt it!!!

:D

You are only saying that because you agree with him. Billy B's arguments have been almost entirely emotional so far. Show me the rational ones.

What is rational about wanting to change a system because you dont like the name "subject" to a system that you haven't argued how to implement or know the costs/consequences because a word offends you?

What is rational about getting rid of a head of state that makes us a profit to one that will cost a fortune?

Oh yeh, all rational so far. It is mere form over substance.

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Originally Posted by Biped

Oh I do beg your pardon. Clinton DIDN'T do that, nor did Berlusconi, and they aren't 'Presidents' elected in a democracy.

Feel better?

Going to add anything else to the debate?

Apart from to say that Billy Bongo's arguments are more rational and calm than your lower-lipped wobbling rants and are, I think, designed to stimulate sensible discussion, not clitoral wobbles on every answer from you, sweetlips. And, as it happens, I tend to agree with him/her/it.

Fawning bumlicker - love it and might have to adopt it!!!

:D

You are only saying that because you agree with him. Billy B's arguments have been almost entirely emotional so far. Show me the rational ones.

What is rational about wanting to change a system because you dont like the name "subject" to a system that you haven't argued how to implement or know the costs/consequences because a word offends you?

What is rational about getting rid of a head of state that makes us a profit to one that will cost a fortune?

Oh yeh, all rational so far. It is mere form over substance.

I think that your penultimate paragraph slightly misses the point about government. Additionally, the evidence for that comment is debatable. But regardless of the costs the economics of the two systems is irrelevant to the debate.

It is clear that BB advocates replacing the current system with a form of representative democracy with a head of state that is elected and has executive power. He mentions accountability and the liberal beliefs that every man is born equal and should have an equal chance of reaching high position in this country which is hardly an emotional and irrational perspective. I would regard those sentiments as commendable and I assume that you would have a similar position on those beliefs - or do you really consider that one of the highest positions in this country should be the preserve of one family and exclusive to every other indivdual, regardless of their merit or ability?

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Originally Posted by Biped

Oh I do beg your pardon. Clinton DIDN'T do that, nor did Berlusconi, and they aren't 'Presidents' elected in a democracy.

Feel better?

Going to add anything else to the debate?

Apart from to say that Billy Bongo's arguments are more rational and calm than your lower-lipped wobbling rants and are, I think, designed to stimulate sensible discussion, not clitoral wobbles on every answer from you, sweetlips. And, as it happens, I tend to agree with him/her/it.

Fawning bumlicker - love it and might have to adopt it!!!

:D

You are only saying that because you agree with him. Billy B's arguments have been almost entirely emotional so far. Show me the rational ones.

What is rational about wanting to change a system because you dont like the name "subject" to a system that you haven't argued how to implement or know the costs/consequences because a word offends you?

What is rational about getting rid of a head of state that makes us a profit to one that will cost a fortune?

Oh yeh, all rational so far. It is mere form over substance.

I think that your penultimate paragraph slightly misses the point about government. Additionally, the evidence for that comment is debatable. But regardless of the costs the economics of the two systems is irrelevant to the debate.

It is clear that BB advocates replacing the current system with a form of representative democracy with a head of state that is elected and has executive power. He mentions accountability and the liberal beliefs that every man is born equal and should have an equal chance of reaching high position in this country which is hardly an emotional and irrational perspective. I would regard those sentiments as commendable and I assume that you would have a similar position on those beliefs - or do you really consider that one of the highest positions in this country should be the preserve of one family and exclusive to every other indivdual, regardless of their merit or ability?

At no point has he so far rationalised the elected president argument. Why would it be better? Can he or you provide examples of where a presidential system outperforms ours in terms of delivery?

I have at various points throughout this wibbly-wobbly PMT'd right up debate cited examples to show why a presidential system is fallible, why it does not necessarily deliver, and given names of miscreants.

Where is the counter to that? I'm still waiting for someone to validate their argument with something better than 'Well, it's democratic in't it, which means it's better'.

The only difference I can see is that we still have this mawkish, bum-licking desire for a strong-man or woman to lead us, and we'd like to choose that person out of a bunch of people who've slimed and back-room-dealed their way before us - not on merit of being really good for a nation, merely by dint of being the slimiest, with the biggest money backing them. Then, and only then, do the plebs get to decide between them.

Better than the Monarchy - someone please, please justify the argument for me.

Originally Posted by Biped

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

Originally Posted by tattybadger

Originally Posted by Biped

Oh I do beg your pardon. Clinton DIDN'T do that, nor did Berlusconi, and they aren't 'Presidents' elected in a democracy.

Feel better?

Going to add anything else to the debate?

Apart from to say that Billy Bongo's arguments are more rational and calm than your lower-lipped wobbling rants and are, I think, designed to stimulate sensible discussion, not clitoral wobbles on every answer from you, sweetlips. And, as it happens, I tend to agree with him/her/it.

Fawning bumlicker - love it and might have to adopt it!!!

:D

You are only saying that because you agree with him. Billy B's arguments have been almost entirely emotional so far. Show me the rational ones.

What is rational about wanting to change a system because you dont like the name "subject" to a system that you haven't argued how to implement or know the costs/consequences because a word offends you?

What is rational about getting rid of a head of state that makes us a profit to one that will cost a fortune?

Oh yeh, all rational so far. It is mere form over substance.

I think that your penultimate paragraph slightly misses the point about government. Additionally, the evidence for that comment is debatable. But regardless of the costs the economics of the two systems is irrelevant to the debate.

It is clear that BB advocates replacing the current system with a form of representative democracy with a head of state that is elected and has executive power. He mentions accountability and the liberal beliefs that every man is born equal and should have an equal chance of reaching high position in this country which is hardly an emotional and irrational perspective. I would regard those sentiments as commendable and I assume that you would have a similar position on those beliefs - or do you really consider that one of the highest positions in this country should be the preserve of one family and exclusive to every other indivdual, regardless of their merit or ability?

At no point has he so far rationalised the elected president argument. Why would it be better? Can he or you provide examples of where a presidential system outperforms ours in terms of delivery?

I have at various points throughout this wibbly-wobbly PMT'd right up debate cited examples to show why a presidential system is fallible, why it does not necessarily deliver, and given names of miscreants.

Where is the counter to that? I'm still waiting for someone to validate their argument with something better than 'Well, it's democratic in't it, which means it's better'.

The only difference I can see is that we still have this mawkish, bum-licking desire for a strong-man or woman to lead us, and we'd like to choose that person out of a bunch of people who've slimed and back-room-dealed their way before us - not on merit of being really good for a nation, merely by dint of being the slimiest, with the biggest money backing them. Then, and only then, do the plebs get to decide between them.

Where is your evidence to validate your point that every politician is as you describe? you suggest tha every individual who chooses to go into politics has an odious charcter - I doubt that is the case and you are, I think, presenting a case that Ms Wade would be proud of in the latest edition of her journal.

Better than the Monarchy - someone please, please justify the argument for me.

Of course - the obverse of that is equally applicable - better than government of the people, by the people and for the people? Please justify a monarchy.

You forever bleat on about today's politicians - take a look at the Royals wil you? They are as fallible as the rest of us - they have had broken relationships, adulterous affairs, dabbles with drugs, scandal and et al. It happens that the incumbent is (as far as I am aware) untouched by this and I have the utmost admiration for her as an individual. I would even vote her in to the position as head of state, given the choice but (and here's the nub of it) - I don't have that choice. I love choice - it gives me power - not a great deal I admit - but I am an old fashioned megolomaniac and I need that.

Education and communication has given all of us in this country the ability to be able to think about the issues and, if we so choose, to run for positions of power at any level in government - why should the (arguably) top job be excluded to those of us who have the ability to do the job well?

Originally Posted by Biped

...
Better than the Monarchy - someone please, please justify the argument for me.

Can't do that, I'm afraid, but if you look at the problem in light of the fact that if we were so stupid as to go down that route right now, one of the principal candidates for President would be Blair...

Mmmm.