[In the Drunk Tank]

What a load of rambling, sensationalist crap that is Peter, the Royal's are essentially just figureheads now, nothing more, nothing less. "Bomb the wedding", do you think you're some kind of revolutionary freedom fighter or something?

[arista]

Originally Posted by MTVN

What a load of rambling, sensationalist crap that is, the Royal's are essentially just figureheads now, nothing more, nothing less. "Bomb the wedding", do you thin you're some kind of revolutionary freedom fighter or something?

Yes that Old Punk
Prof. Knight
was Fummin' at the End of that ITV1 Daybreak Fight

[In the Drunk Tank]

Originally Posted by Peter_Dow

And that's the problem. There is a job of head of state to be done, defending constitutional freedoms against the state which rules us etc.

The Queen takes up the position of head of state and prevents us electing a president as head of a republican state. The figurehead monarch is a constitutional bed-blocker.

Do we have real doctors or "figurehead" doctors who just smile and wave?

Do we have real firemen or "figurehead" firemen who just smile and wave?

Do we have real plumbers or "figurehead" plumbers who just smile and wave?

Do we have real sportsmen or "figurehead" sportsmen who just smile and wave?

OK, so we need a real head of state not just a "figurehead" head of state who just smiles and waves.



Well if I thought that I would have links in my signature to a profile video of me protesting against the Queen, and a republican revolution for Scotland website and maybe a freedom fighter forum or something.

So if they are just figureheads how can any of your accusation stand up, I think the Royal Family are just there for tradition myself and to bring in a bit of tourism money. Ideally I'd rather they weren't there but, in the system we live in, I'm not really strongly opposed to their existance

[In the Drunk Tank]

Originally Posted by Peter_Dow

A good president as head of state has a job to do which saves lives and a kingdom can't have that good president there which means that those lives are not saved, so those lives are lost.

A kingdom with a figurehead monarch as head of state stops there being a good president, so the kingdom and monarchy costs lives.

The accusation against Elizabeth and the Windsors personally is that they are insisting on staying there as UK royals. They could all abdicate and go into exile and then they would not be personally to blame.



Well it is a tradition of death, disaster and missed opportunity. Also the royals and kingdom costs us a lot more.

Britons are about £7000 a year per person poorer than Americans because we don't have republican constitutional civil freedoms to fall back on when the people in charge make costly mistakes.

I am sorry but there is a lot to explain so you really need to do some independent reading. Please read my website, for example.

Dunblane Primary School Massacre Inquiry Cover-up Revealed

The Royal Disasters - The Terrorist Killer Queen

I do have a worry that certain people cannot ever understand something which is different from what the TV news tells them.

You have been told by the TV and the mainstream press that there is no real problem with the Queen, and some people, perhaps you, are simply not independent minded enough to learn anything different.

That's an absurd conclusion to draw, because of course without a Queen we would inevitably elect a "good" President who would do everything right and save everyone? And having a monarch means that we only have a Prime Minister who is unable to save peoples lives like he would do if he was President? Come off it.

And dont bother getting condascending, I'm not a docile worshipper of the monarchy and I'd consider myself pretty open minded and independent but you're a bit of an idiot. Most of what you're saying is based on ridiculous assumptions and illogical conclusions and you're attempts to divert the blame for anything that goes wrong over to the Queen is just laughable.