Prince of Wales becomes oldest heir to the Throne for 300 years
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
EAO. I agree with Karrie, the fit is just not quite right. Same nails on a chalkboard charm but there's something missing.
Maybe you should lay a trap with an Israel-Palestine thread and see if he takes the bait, lol.
And just 'ow do the people of Alsace feel la' bout THAT , GOV'nor?
Never mind how they feel. We're the ones having to eat them everytime we go into a Bolton kebab shop.
Thomas Whateley, a member of Parliament who helped draft the Stamp Act, defended the "virtual" representation in Parliament of the Americans in 1765 by declaring American rights were theoretically not infringed as British subjects, otherwise known as 'Commons', when he wrote that the Americans,
claim it is true the Privilege, which is common to all British Subjects, of being taxed only with their own Consent, given by their Representatives; and may they ever enjoy the Privilege in all its Extent: May this sacred Pledge of Liberty be preserved inviolate, to the utmost Verge of our Dominions, and to the latest Page of our History!..All British Subjects are really in the same; none are actually, all are virtually represented in Parliament; for every Member of Parliament sits in the House, not as Representative of his own Constituents, but as one of that august Assembly by which all the Commons of Great Britain are represented...It would be a singular Objection to a Man's Vote for a Member of Parliament that being represented in a provincial, he cannot be represented in a national Assembly;..We value the Right of being represented in the national Legislature as the dearest Privilege we enjoy; how justly would the Colonies complain, if they alone were deprived of it? They acknowledge Dependence upon their Mother Country; but that Dependence would be Slavery not Connection, if they bore no Part in the Government of the whole...to deny the Authority of [Parliament] is to surrender all Claims to a Share in its Councils...a permanent Title to a Share in national Councils, would be exchanged for a precarious Representation in a provincial Assembly...Happily for them, this is not their Condition. They are on the contrary a Part, and an important Part, of the Commons of Great Britain: they are represented in Parliament, in the same Manner as those Inhabitants of Britain are, who have not Voices in Elections; and they enjoy, with the Rest of their Fellow-subjects the inestimable Privilege of not being bound by any Laws, or subject to any Taxes, to which the Majority of the Representatives of the Commons have not consented."
Josiah Tucker, A Welsh Anglican cleric, argued in Four Tracts on Political and Commercial Subjects [London, 1774] that incorporation of American representatives on a demographically proportional basis as opposed to a virtual one, alongside such an equalisation in suffrage of Britons, would result in a House of Commons with too many members to function efficiently. He maintained that virtual representation was adequate because it did not effect the theoretical right of qualified British subjects across the Empire, including in England, to vote for representatives in Britain, even though "their Distance from the Place of Election" made this right "inconvenient".
No taxation without representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Josiah Tucker, A Welsh Anglican cleric, argued in Four Tracts on Political and Commercial Subjects [London, 1774] that incorporation of American representatives on a demographically proportional basis as opposed to a virtual one, alongside such an equalisation in suffrage of Britons, would result in a House of Commons with too many members to function efficiently. He maintained that virtual representation was adequate because it did not effect the theoretical right of qualified British subjects across the Empire, including in England, to vote for representatives in Britain, even though "their Distance from the Place of Election" made this right "inconvenient".
No taxation without representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although I'm fairly new here , perhaps we should give Tober the 'benefit of the doubt?' Yes, he has strong opinions- but some of the counter arguments have been, well, not the sort one would use over the neighbourhood fence..
I have no issue with opinions, strong or otherwise. I do take issue with people who don't listen and who show an absolute lack of respect. And it's not even the members that are directly being "attacked" (and I use quotations because it's not really an attack, 9 times out of 10 it's a back and forth in which both members participate), it's the disrespect it shows the entire membership as a whole that I don't like.
When members who don't normally wander into the fray start wandering in, that's a clear signal. Smart, observant people take note of that. They don't respond by saying "must be on the right track", or words to that effect.
Bottom line is, if you make a strong, bold statement then expect a bold, strong response.
I'd vote for him in 2015 if he was a member of UKIP and stood in my Bolton South East constituency.
He'd be much better than our current MP, Labour's Yasmin Qureshi, who only got in in 2010 because all the Asians in the area voted for her.
I'd vote for him in 2015 if he was a member of UKIP and stood in my Bolton South East constituency.
He'd be much better than our current MP, Labour's Yasmin Qureshi, who only got in in 2010 because all the Asians in the area voted for her.
She only got in on votes? That's horrid.
Thank you.
I am very well respected in my home community. I come here to argue, and I just pitch in and give it my best. To say that I disrespect the "community" is quite odd and nothing I have seen before on the Internet. One problem I have always noticed online is that the absolute lack of audio and visual cues often makes for misunderstood conversations and arguments over nothing. Take the present debate on this thread. People who think their definition of "equality" is God given are ganging up on a poster who is essentially saying that his version of equality works in his family. Huh? Kind of a no-brainer, but nobody is getting it. They have defined a community version of "equality" and are delightedly joining together to try and enforce it.
I understand what you are saying - essentially that people here are expected to knuckle under to the Old Guard for a reasonable period and "assume the position" on a pecking order before really asserting themselves. I also acknowledge that I have a tendency to shoot back quickly. My first contacts here were in gun arguments. What I encountered there was something that is common throughout the Internet - right wing gun enthusiasts boiling over with anger who despise anybody who they consider more "liberal" than them. They hardly ever fail to leave a snarky 'f you' comment in every contact where you dispute any point. I offer something they haven't usually encountered before - I have been shooting for 50 years and I disagree with them. Look at my last contact with Colpy. He made a typical right wing US Republican assertion. I came back with a quote straight out of the most recent US Supreme Court gun case that proved him absolutely incorrect - and my reply was polite. Assertive and direct to the point, but not rude at all. He replied that I am as dumb as his dog. Sometimes I have just snapped back in kind. But this board seems to think the Old Guard must be respected and I should knuckle under? Nawwwww. That is the mindset karrie butt in with, and after our first pissing contest she hasn't stopped.
Do I have to knuckle under to get board "respect"? Not at all. I have been getting board support off the main screen. The main clique just seems determined to control. I think it's hilarious, and so socially familiar. It's what ruling cliques do everywhere, and its usually a right wing clique.
Once again, thank you for the kind words. I'll try not to unnecessarily antagonize, but it's too late in life to lie down and play dead.
Slm,I agree with your points, however, discussions usually go way out of hand when too many people try to get that last nasty response in. Which triggers a reprisal response.
What relevance the discussion yesterday had to British Royal history was debatable.:lol:
I'd vote for him in 2015 if he was a member of UKIP and stood in my Bolton South East constituency.
He'd be much better than our current MP, Labour's Yasmin Qureshi, who only got in in 2010 because all the Asians in the area voted for her.
I was under the impression that Harold and his valiant band went down fighting for constitutional democracy, tenth century style..:smile:
Rights of the Fyrd, fair representation in the Witan, Knackered Nornams and Norsemen, all that good stuff.
I rather suspect Harold the Great and Alfred the great would have been Labour MP's in the 21st century, but maybe that's just me...
She only got in because all the Muzzies in the area voted for her.
It's already a Labour safe seat. Labour made it even more of a safe seat by installing a Muslim candidate in the constituency which has a high Muslim population.
It's not democracy. It's cheating.
Yes, usually when someone gets elected it's because people in their electorate who hold views in line with theirs, vote for them.
I'd day parachuting a Muslim candidate into an area where there is a large Muslim population is not democracy, it's cheating.
Running a candidate who fits with and will represent the voter base of an area is hardly 'cheating'.