The anti-American dream

Tommy Monk wrote:

And the funny thing didge... the video is over 12 minutes long... but you made your post only 4 minutes after I posted the video up...!!!


Which shows that you clearly didn't even watch it... let alone understand it...!!!


Maybe you should go get a job at 'der speigel'...!?

Thor wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

And the funny thing didge... the video is over 12 minutes long... but you made your post only 4 minutes after I posted the video up...!!!


Which shows that you clearly didn't even watch it... let alone understand it...!!!


Maybe you should go get a job at 'der speigel'...!?

How do you not know whether I have seen the video before?



Is that your defense for his far right fuckwittery?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Only an idiot would say that support for the first amendment was 'far right'... eh didge...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Only an idiot would say that support for the first amendment was 'far right'... eh didge...?

Thor wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Who claimed that Tommy?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thor wrote:


Who claimed that Tommy?

You did... or haven't you watched/understood the video...!?





You're making yourself look like a right twat here...!!!

Thor wrote:Man alive he is one ugly boring fuck

He is like the modern Goebbels

He is full of shit and scaremongering and is such a bore

He will not be happy until the Far right rules the west and idiots like Tommy buy his bullshit

I mesan listen to his words. Nobody is actually censoring freedom of speech, but he wants to make people believe this

Only an idiot would buy into such an idiots propaganda

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thor wrote:Man alive he is one ugly boring fuck

He is like the modern Goebbels

He is full of shit and scaremongering and is such a bore

He will not be happy until the Far right rules the west and idiots like Tommy buy his bullshit

I mesan listen to his words. Nobody is actually censoring freedom of speech, but he wants to make people believe this

Only an idiot would buy into such an idiots propaganda

Thor wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Again, who claimed anything on the first ammenment?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Thor wrote:




Again, who claimed anything on the first ammenment?

As I said... you obviously haven't watched/understood the video...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

You commented on the video...


You should know...

Tommy Monk wrote:


If you had watched/understood the video... you would know...

Tommy Monk wrote:First you say he's 'far right' for supporting the 1st amendment... now you say he's lying...!?


Can you explain your claims?

Tommy Monk wrote:First you say he's 'far right' for supporting the 1st amendment... now you say he's lying...!?


Can you explain your claims?

Thor wrote:When I am back, I hope you have evidence for your claims, that the first ammendment has been broken Tommy.

I dont want some bullshit like from eilzel using Veya to get out of him being a little scum bag

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:First you say he's 'far right' for supporting the 1st amendment... now you say he's lying...!?


Can you explain your claims?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

IS that Tommy's dad in that video  ???

.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I find it hysterical that he throws around the phrase "miseducated halfwits" while hand-waving away the truth that completely undermines his argument:

The First Amendment regulates the relationship between the government and publishers - ie it's illegal for the government to tell a publisher what and what not to publish (though the judicial branch has granted the government some say in these matters, such as hate speech and some kinds of pornography).

The First Amendment does not in any way regulate the relationship between publishers and writers, etc.

Publishers aren't required to print and distribute every manuscript submitted to them.

Record labels are not obligated to record and release every album.

Studios aren't forced to turn every script sent to them into a movie.

And Facebook isn't required to allow people to post whatever they want.

Tommy Monk wrote:No... he was talking about a load of your top university students who thought it a good idea to get rid of the 1st amendment...

And about how it is a tragic failure of the lefty's in the education system where students aren't taught to think but just to repeat lefty ideology...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Note how these neo-nazis thrive on trading in endless rumoirs on these propaganda videos, with zero evidence to back up their wild claims...

As do their ignorantly willing boosters on here, and elsewhere..

Loads of lefty university students, blah blah blah......
Thousands of criminal 'immigrant' rapists and drug dealers
Zionist-controlled communist/socialist media outlets
Attacks on "constitutionally-protected 'free speech'"
Obama was a Muslim plant
Merkel is a lefty/liberal stooge

Never bothering to actually look at either the proportions and per centages of crimes committed by their scapegoats in comparison to the wider populations..

Knowing quite well that the target audiences for their propaganda have never even read their constitutions (and, is Tommy even aware that Britain doesn't even have a constitution ?), nor follow up on news events;  but are only looking for more propaganda to support their own bigotries.

Original Quill wrote:Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Britain has no constitution.  As Tom Clancy said:

"It Didn't Happen If You Didn't Write It Down".

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Britain has no constitution.  As Tom Clancy said:

"It Didn't Happen If You Didn't Write It Down".

Nay, nay, nay...Britain does have a constitution.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second will, I am sure, be intrigued to learn that according to Mr Clancy, fine and accomplished author though he may be, she does not exist.

But she is, regardless of his particular definition of happenstance,  a constitutional monarch, as have been her forebears over centuries, acting in accordance with a written or unwritten constitution.

It was political theorist Walter Bagehot who defined the three principle political rights of a constitutional monarch (to be consulted, to encourage and to warn) and even he was way behind the times because the Bronze Age Hittite kings reigned according to a similar system.

Those rights, together with the rights of commoners, were broadly enshrined in our (written) Magna Carta (even though King John largely tore it up as soon as the barons galloped away from Runnymede!)

And the various Acts of Union that established the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland were most certainly written down, and it is on those that our modern constitution, unwritten though it may be, is largely based.

We may not be able to wave a single piece of paper around, as can you and your countrymen, but our constitution is just as real - and just as effective - as yours. And it is a bloody site older.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Britain has no constitution.  As Tom Clancy said:

"It Didn't Happen If You Didn't Write It Down".

Nay, nay, nay...Britain does have a constitution.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second will, I am sure, be intrigued to learn that according to Mr Clancy, fine and accomplished author though he may be, she does not exist.

But she is, regardless of his particular definition of happenstance,  a constitutional monarch, as have been her forebears over centuries, acting in accordance with a written or unwritten constitution.

It was political theorist Walter Bagehot who defined the three principle political rights of a constitutional monarch (to be consulted, to encourage and to warn) and even he was way behind the times because the Bronze Age Hittite kings reigned according to a similar system.

Those rights, together with the rights of commoners, were broadly enshrined in our (written) Magna Carta (even though King John largely tore it up as soon as the barons galloped away from Runnymede!)

And the various Acts of Union that established the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland were most certainly written down, and it is on those that our modern constitution, unwritten though it may be, is largely based.

We may not be able to wave a single piece of paper around, as can you and your countrymen, but our constitution is just as real - and just as effective - as yours. And it is a bloody site older.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Britain has no constitution.  As Tom Clancy said:

"It Didn't Happen If You Didn't Write It Down".

Nay, nay, nay...Britain does have a constitution.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second will, I am sure, be intrigued to learn that according to Mr Clancy, fine and accomplished author though he may be, she does not exist.

But she is, regardless of his particular definition of happenstance,  a constitutional monarch, as have been her forebears over centuries, acting in accordance with a written or unwritten constitution.

It was political theorist Walter Bagehot who defined the three principle political rights of a constitutional monarch (to be consulted, to encourage and to warn) and even he was way behind the times because the Bronze Age Hittite kings reigned according to a similar system.

Those rights, together with the rights of commoners, were broadly enshrined in our (written) Magna Carta (even though King John largely tore it up as soon as the barons galloped away from Runnymede!)

And the various Acts of Union that established the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland were most certainly written down, and it is on those that our modern constitution, unwritten though it may be, is largely based.

We may not be able to wave a single piece of paper around, as can you and your countrymen, but our constitution is just as real - and just as effective - as yours. And it is a bloody site older.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Nay, nay, nay...Britain does have a constitution.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second will, I am sure, be intrigued to learn that according to Mr Clancy, fine and accomplished author though he may be, she does not exist.

But she is, regardless of his particular definition of happenstance,  a constitutional monarch, as have been her forebears over centuries, acting in accordance with a written or unwritten constitution.

It was political theorist Walter Bagehot who defined the three principle political rights of a constitutional monarch (to be consulted, to encourage and to warn) and even he was way behind the times because the Bronze Age Hittite kings reigned according to a similar system.

Those rights, together with the rights of commoners, were broadly enshrined in our (written) Magna Carta (even though King John largely tore it up as soon as the barons galloped away from Runnymede!)

And the various Acts of Union that established the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland were most certainly written down, and it is on those that our modern constitution, unwritten though it may be, is largely based.

We may not be able to wave a single piece of paper around, as can you and your countrymen, but our constitution is just as real - and just as effective - as yours. And it is a bloody site older.

I'm familiar with the argument.  I just don't buy it.  Y'all had a lot of things written down, only they did nothing to change the structure of British government.

The Magna Carta was written in the spirit of sharing power, but it was only for nobles.  All sorts of things have been written down, and it matters not a wit to change the structure of government.  Britain is a monarchy, with some clever guys hanging around to help out.

Ever since George II said, I haf learned das engleesh, YA?,     Englishmen rolled their eyes and rolled up their sleeves.  Oh shit, this guy needs help.  Parliament, as a fledgling democracy, was born to try to save Britain from those illiterate Germans.

I think that the UK saw how successful a constitutional democracy was in the US, and they lately jumped in: Oh yeah, we have one of those too.  Had it for years.  

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm familiar with the argument.  I just don't buy it.  Y'all had a lot of things written down, only they did nothing to change the structure of British government.

The Magna Carta was written in the spirit of sharing power, but it was only for nobles.  All sorts of things have been written down, and it matters not a wit to change the structure of government.  Britain is a monarchy, with some clever guys hanging around to help out.

Ever since George II said, I haf learned das engleesh, YA?,     Englishmen rolled their eyes and rolled up their sleeves.  Oh shit, this guy needs help.  Parliament, as a fledgling democracy, was born to try to save Britain from those illiterate Germans.

I think that the UK saw how successful a constitutional democracy was in the US, and they lately jumped in: Oh yeah, we have one of those too.  Had it for years.  

Quill, in Great Britain the Monarch reigns, but Parliament rules, as I am sure you well know. The Royal Assent to a parliamentary Bill to enable it to become an Act is, technically possible...though no sovereign has refused to grant it since, I think, the beginning of the 18th century.

Under our present system of government were Queen Elizabeth to refuse to sign off a Bill presented by the governing party, the inevitable result would be a constitutional crisis.

And, of course,we actually had one of those with the abdication of Edward V111 in 1936.

You may not "buy it"...but it's our unwritten constitution - and it's not for sale.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Quill, in Great Britain the Monarch reigns, but Parliament rules, as I am sure you well know. The Royal Assent to a parliamentary Bill to enable it to become an Act is, technically possible...though no sovereign has refused to grant it since, I think, the beginning of the 18th century.

Under our present system of government were Queen Elizabeth to refuse to sign off a Bill presented by the governing party, the inevitable result would be a constitutional crisis.

And, of course,we actually had one of those with the abdication of Edward V111 in 1936.

You may not "buy it"...but it's our unwritten constitution - and it's not for sale.

It's not an unwritten constitution.  Parliament owes it's power to the fact that the German kings couldn't speak the language...and knew nothing about the country.  The Hanover's took a back seat to Parliament until they could figure out what was going on.  By the time they figured it out, Parliament had already assumed hegemony over the institution of the monarchy.