Liverpool FC Forum

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:51 pm

JoeTerp wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:
JoeTerp wrote:already in a state of corporatism, have been for a while, just a matter of degrees. Seems to me that most Europeans get hung up on the racist side of fascism because well the most prominent fascsist states have been extremely racist. But fascism has other evils too, its funamentally economically insolvent. And you don't need race to be fascist, but you do need an "us" vs. "them" type of mindset.

Here, I think is a somewhat accurate picture (normally I would have inverted the top and bottom, but it doesn't really matter, its all relative, you can put me right next to rothbard:
link

IMo America is on its way from statism, to a higher level of statism. Whether its socialist or fascist doesn't really matter much to me. ALthough Fascism and Communism both start from the polar opposites on the left to right spectrum, they both moved (or exist) so far down the state control ladder that in practice, they look pretty similar

good point. another factor regards to fascism is the police state. btw nice diagram. noticed Pinochet up there. did just a case on him where the HOL had to overturn their own conviction against him cause one of the judges was taking an interest in his case, being a member of Amnesty. surprised some people in his homeland regard him as some kind of hero after all he had done during his regime.

the police state is just something that has to come with becoming more statist. I would say that both communism and fascism lead to police states. And when I say police state, i mean overt police state. I think that the USA is a police state, thank goodness its much less overt than Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, but we still had wire tapping under Bush, we put Japanese people in internment camps in WWII, and if I refuse to help finance the occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan, men with guns would break down my door and put me in a cage.

no way, thats like the movies!

by **Judge** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:24 pm

maypaxvobiscum wrote:Judge, the queen is just a historical figurehead with no real importance. Parliament can pass a bill without her approval.

blasphema

thats our queen your slating

grrrr .....no real importance, how dare you

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Judge wrote:
maypaxvobiscum wrote:Judge, the queen is just a historical figurehead with no real importance. Parliament can pass a bill without her approval.

blasphema

thats our queen your slating

grrrr .....no real importance, how dare you

true i understand the whole British Pride thingy about traditions and so forth but trust me man, Parliament is sovereign, not the Queen.

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:25 pm

All these comments are guess work.

The fact of the matter is that constitutionally the Queen has over-riding power over the government, she chooses to allow parliament to run the country. The Queen's approval to all legislation is 100% necessary to become law (Royal Assent). The problem is if the Queen chose to use her Royal Assent and deny the passing of law there is no certainty as to what would happen. The last time it happened was in 1707 by Queen Anne (she refused to pass a bill to settle the militia in Scotland). The country would effectively be in crisis, essentially public opinion would decide whether to allow it to happen.

I remember listening to a radio program years ago when Tony Blair was the most hated man in England and the Queen's Jubilee had lifted public opinion of the monarchy. It was said then by many commentators that the Queen's power to dissolve a failing Labour government would of been supported by the people.

by **Judge** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:39 pm

well said SCS

shoot maypax and lfc2007 the blasphemas

probably dossers aswell :angry:

by **JoeTerp** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:00 pm

I find it incredible that in 2009, a country like England still has a monarch. Who cares if its just for show or not. Isn't the Queen still the head of the church as well? Seems absolutely ridiculous to me. Didn't royal families justify their status because they were ordained by god? How has this not just been put to a stop?

by **LFC2007** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:26 pm

SouthCoastShankly wrote:All these comments are guess work.

The fact of the matter is that constitutionally the Queen has over-riding power over the government, she chooses to allow parliament to run the country. The Queen's approval to all legislation is 100% necessary to become law (Royal Assent). The problem is if the Queen chose to use her Royal Assent and deny the passing of law there is no certainty as to what would happen. The last time it happened was in 1707 by Queen Anne (she refused to pass a bill to settle the militia in Scotland). The country would effectively be in crisis, essentially public opinion would decide whether to allow it to happen.

I remember listening to a radio program years ago when Tony Blair was the most hated man in England and the Queen's Jubilee had lifted public opinion of the monarchy. It was said then by many commentators that the Queen's power to dissolve a failing Labour government would of been supported by the people.

It's hardly guesswork. She reigns but does not rule and that is the fact of the matter.

It is extremely unlikely that she would refuse Royal Assent or arbitrarily dissolve Parliament at any point in the foreseeable future. To do so would be to plunge the future of the Monarchy in grave doubt since it would fundamentally undermine the nature of our democracy; we cannot have an arbitrary power who decides what should be statute and what shouldn't. (As if there aren't doubts about the role of the Monarchy anyway) For that reason, what 'power' there is to speak of is in essence theoretical, which is why the characterisation that she 'chooses to allow' Parliament to convene, or 'chooses to pass a bill' doesn't make for an accurate portrayal of her role. She doesn't even stamp the f'uckin' thing herself! :laugh:

by **Number 9** » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:00 pm

The Queen is probably the most British thing we have..... just beaten by the Union Jack!
She is part of our heritage as Charles will be after her and William after him and so on.

Im not saying she is great or anything or that she holds power..BUT she is a beacon to some parts of our community and deserves respect.

I understand that certain parts of our community find her intolerable and that is their right as we live in a FREE country!
If it becomes so hard to take..its simple,this country has a lot of airports..board a fuc'king plane and fuc'k back off to the cesspit you came here to escape(or your parents before,or theirs)did..You know the place that they could not stay in?Because they would get,robbed,tortured,abused,bullied??

The Monarchy although shallow is part of the UK,if ya dont like it fu'ck off to some place you can call home that meets your standards!

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:45 am

LFC2007 wrote:
SouthCoastShankly wrote:All these comments are guess work.

The fact of the matter is that constitutionally the Queen has over-riding power over the government, she chooses to allow parliament to run the country. The Queen's approval to all legislation is 100% necessary to become law (Royal Assent). The problem is if the Queen chose to use her Royal Assent and deny the passing of law there is no certainty as to what would happen. The last time it happened was in 1707 by Queen Anne (she refused to pass a bill to settle the militia in Scotland). The country would effectively be in crisis, essentially public opinion would decide whether to allow it to happen.

I remember listening to a radio program years ago when Tony Blair was the most hated man in England and the Queen's Jubilee had lifted public opinion of the monarchy. It was said then by many commentators that the Queen's power to dissolve a failing Labour government would of been supported by the people.

It's hardly guesswork. She reigns but does not rule and that is the fact of the matter.

It is extremely unlikely that she would refuse Royal Assent or arbitrarily dissolve Parliament at any point in the foreseeable future. To do so would be to plunge the future of the Monarchy in grave doubt since it would fundamentally undermine the nature of our democracy; we cannot have an arbitrary power who decides what should be statute and what shouldn't. (As if there aren't doubts about the role of the Monarchy anyway) For that reason, what 'power' there is to speak of is in essence theoretical, which is why the characterisation that she 'chooses to allow' Parliament to convene, or 'chooses to pass a bill' doesn't make for an accurate portrayal of her role. She doesn't even stamp the f'uckin' thing herself!

by **Big Niall** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 2:04 am

I am a 100% republican and believe any queen or king is no better than the man on the street - however Britiain wants a monarchy and it is their choice.

As a kiid in the early 1980s Iin Ireland I thought all these simplistic ideas but I now think England is a great place.

I do think there is Huge Islamic issue. This will define Britain over the next 20 years.

by **JoeTerp** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:50 am

Number 9 wrote:The Queen is probably the most British thing we have..... just beaten by the Union Jack!
She is part of our heritage as Charles will be after her and William after him and so on.

Im not saying she is great or anything or that she holds power..BUT she is a beacon to some parts of our community and deserves respect.

I understand that certain parts of our community find her intolerable and that is their right as we live in a FREE country!
If it becomes so hard to take..its simple,this country has a lot of airports..board a fuc'king plane and fuc'k back off to the cesspit you came here to escape(or your parents before,or theirs)did..You know the place that they could not stay in?Because they would get,robbed,tortured,abused,bullied??

The Monarchy although shallow is part of the UK,if ya dont like it fu'ck off to some place you can call home that meets your standards!

the royal family doesn't seem very British to me. Seems to be more foreign than anything, just about every monarch's mother was born outside Britain.

Beacon of what exactly? Deserves respect for what? being born into a certain family?

by **made in UK** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:57 am

JoeTerp wrote:
Number 9 wrote:The Queen is probably the most British thing we have..... just beaten by the Union Jack!
She is part of our heritage as Charles will be after her and William after him and so on.

Im not saying she is great or anything or that she holds power..BUT she is a beacon to some parts of our community and deserves respect.

I understand that certain parts of our community find her intolerable and that is their right as we live in a FREE country!
If it becomes so hard to take..its simple,this country has a lot of airports..board a fuc'king plane and fuc'k back off to the cesspit you came here to escape(or your parents before,or theirs)did..You know the place that they could not stay in?Because they would get,robbed,tortured,abused,bullied??

The Monarchy although shallow is part of the UK,if ya dont like it fu'ck off to some place you can call home that meets your standards!

the royal family doesn't seem very British to me. Seems to be more foreign than anything, just about every monarch's mother was born outside Britain.

Beacon of what exactly? Deserves respect for what? being born into a certain family?

I think he means having a Monarch and Queen to boot is as British as a Sunday roast, red phone box, cuppa tea or an Aston Martin.

Its an Iconic Beacon for the Poms, the tradition, culture and history of the monarch in Britain is second to none.

Who cares if its just for show or not.

"Its not just for show" the monarch brings in millions of pounds a year in revenue.

by **made in UK** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:10 am

In a recent poll by a British newspaper it was shown that "70% of British people are in favour of the monarchy." So what does monarchy do for us then? Well until 1603 the English and Scottish crowns were separate; this was until the accession of King James VI of Scotland (I of England) to the English Throne. Thereafter a single monarch reigned in the U.K. After the 17th century, monarchs lost executive power and they increasingly became subject to parliament. This resulted in today's constitutional monarchy. So British Monarchy nowadays does not have much power. However there are reasons to keep the British Monarchy.Research shows that our monarchy is one that has survived for many years and is currently the longest lasting monarchy in the world. This is a reason why people are in favour of the British monarchy, because it gives them pride in their country. 'Keep the Monarchy!', a pro-monarchy website states, "Monarchy makes us proud to be British." Another reason for keeping monarchy is that the Monarch is a national icon, an icon which cannot be replaced adequately by any other politician or personality. This is because the British Monarchy embodies British history and identity in all its aspec

This is because all politicians come and go but our monarchy continues to stand strong. It has been suggested that the monarchy has a non-partisan but still political effect on society, "The monarch stands for all that we call politics", ('Monarchy And Its Uses'). We should kick out the monarchy to give our government more power and so have a more powerful democracy. Having the monarchy has a negative effect on this country and hinders certain aspects of social development according to Monarchy Out!, "Thanks to the monarch our government is developing slower than it should be". This counters the case for the monarchy that it has a positive affect on our country. The Monarchy also brings in funding for Britain in the way of tourism, e. To keep monarchy due to the money it earns through tourism is a good idea because it is one of the biggest ways that Britain gains tourism funds. " This is pointing out that because the power of our government is growing then the monarchy should be ditched. Others however see it differently, for example it could be argued that the Monarch of Britain has a number of powers at her disposal that she should not have in a modern democracy. The monarchy is of no use to our country because we have a government that does the same job. However, the fact that Britain continues to have a monarchy means that the British people are still, in a sense, subjects of "Her Majesty. It could be suggested that there are two reasons as to why they should not have these powers: first, some powers are meaningless or are, practically speaking, in the hands of the Government anyway; and second, only an elected and accountable executive, whose capabilities are enshrined in a codified constitution, deserves such authority, not least to avoid arbitrary decision-making. This is the most powerful argument against the monarchy and all other arguments either follow on from it or pale in comparison to it.

http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/23749.html

by **account deleted by request** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:12 am

I think its in the interest of the media to play up the role of the monarchy, how else would they all get to be Lords and Ladies

I can't say I am overly bothered whether we have a monarchy or not, but I hate seeing the tourist ploy used to justify its existence. Most people who visit Britain don't do so solely to see the Queen or her many relatives. It may be on their list of things to do while over here, but I doubt anyone comes just to wave at the Queen as she passes by. Its like visiting the USA just to visit the Washington Monument, its on most peoples list , but very few would cancel their trip if the Washington Monument disappeared.

The main benefit we would get from the removal of the Monarchy would be a written constitution, and an end to the confusion of being both subjects and poor citizens.

No doubt Judge would object as he may lose his right to shoot scotsmen within the town walls of York after dark on a Sunday with his bow-and-arrow.

by **maypaxvobiscum** » Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:00 pm

s@int wrote:I think its in the interest of the media to play up the role of the monarchy, how else would they all get to be Lords and Ladies I can't say I am overly bothered whether we have a monarchy or not, but I hate seeing the tourist ploy used to justify its existence. Most people who visit Britain don't do so solely to see the Queen or her many relatives. It may be on their list of things to do while over here, but I doubt anyone comes just to wave at the Queen as she passes by. Its like visiting the USA just to visit the Washington Monument, its on most peoples list , but very few would cancel their trip if the Washington Monument disappeared.

The main benefit we would get from the removal of the Monarchy would be a written constitution, and an end to the confusion of being both subjects and poor citizens.

No doubt Judge would object as he may lose his right to shoot scotsmen within the town walls of York after dark on a Sunday with his bow-and-arrow.

i agree about the tourism bit and i find it rather lame. and you're right, i totally missed out the possibility of a written constitution being formed. cause right now, there isnt any, and when it comes to your basic human rights, the reliance is more on the HRA 1998 and ECHR 1972. so yeah, especially since UK has a common law system and has various sources, a codified Act would benefit the people greatly.

ps: Judge has terrible aiming

i always thought that law was just a myth!

Liverpool FC Forum

The future of britain, - Or the save our future thread.

Who is online