Kroney

Haha you get crazier by the day

You misunderstand me, you suggested that somebody else could move out of the US if he didn't like it. I was supporting that statement. The rest of the West is indeed a lot more palatable to live in and I'd also suggest he'd be better off out of it.

Haha, right on cue. You've had seventy years of Cold War paranoia and McCarthyism telling you that anything even remotely government controlled is tantamount to Stalinism and nobody's going to convince you differently. However, looking from the outside in, I'd far rather pay my income tax and National Insurance and never have to pay a corporate insurance money or any hospital any medical bills whatsoever and be called a communist than live in the US. Honestly, I strongly believe the country your founding fathers believed in died with them.

The commonly held popular misconception is that King Canute was so convinced of his divinely held power that he could stop the tide from coming in. As a result, his feet got wet. So it is with American conservatives and their insurance-based healthcare system. The only humane solution is a paid for by tax, freely available healthcare system. They will continue to cry communism and you may as well let them, they have as much idea as what constitutes communism as I do string theory.

Come on Kroney you are a reasonable and intelligent person, there are different degrees of torture Waterboarding is not as harsh as having hot boiling oil poured over your private parts ^^^ shaky ethical ground ^^^

Either torture's wrong, or it isn't. Attempting to place grades or levels on torture and then trying to decide what's acceptable and what isn't is pretty shaky ethical ground, in my opinion. Applying a set of rules to warfare, which include the forbidding of torture, and then choosing to ignore those rules when it suits because it's agents and "terrorists" rather than soldiers at the very least makes a nation hypocritical.

What ended the British Empire in the end wasn't a lack of military power, but money and the desire of subject nations to break free of its control. The US is a different proposition but does play a similar role, globally. It isn't difficult to see other nations turning to countries like India and China, even Brazil, for protection and trade in the future. Sure, it might take decades, but I reckon you're probably already on the right path. As for money, the recent recession shows that you're not untouchable on that front. Nothing lasts forever, old boy. The Romans and the Victorians thought otherwise and the only thing the world had to do to prove them wrong was wait long enough.

It's basically just a pair of republicans who're either unwilling or unable to accept that a democracy can be democratic outside of their fairly narrow definitions of the term, along with a fair sized dollop of not having the first idea about that which they're criticising.

Oh, Gordon Bennett. You did say I asserted they did nothing, which is exactly what I didn't say. I'm going to assume you're trying to wind me up on purpose, now.

I didn't assert that they did nothing, I said they had no power. Not quite the same thing. In fact, not even a little bit the same thing. The point you proved was your ignorance on the subject. I am also aware as to where your snipe was directed.

As long as it was Suffolk and not somewhere in the Midlands. I'd take the blasted, frigid wastes of Russia over Coventry any day of the week.

I am struggling to come up with words powerful enough to convey just how hard you've just proved my point for me.

I have no arguments against the above.

Christmas doesn't work in Australia. One of many reasons your continent was not meant for human habitation.

HAHAHAAHA And naturally this power can only be held by those with magical royal blood and can only be exercised provided she and her spawn live lavishly at the expense of others. No you're just delusional. Worth noting is that my post was tongue and cheek and directed at an entirely different type of opponent. I honestly didn’t expect someone to come in and defend ****ing “royalism” but I shouldn’t be surprised. Nice argument. You going to actually back up any of these assertions, or just be confident in your ignorance? I have no idea about you or where you're from or where you've got your ideas from, I wouldn't presume to judge. However, suggesting that (and I'm speaking purely about the British monarchy here, not some general notion of royalty) the British monarchy have any power at all is absolute rubbish. That is fact. They exist for the reasons Walsingham and myself have already stated. As a figurehead, as a tourist attraction, as diplomats and as a final check on any evil genius schemes a British Vladimir Putin might have. Even that is a one shot weapon as the first time she tried to use it, you can bet it'd be taken away from her. In conclusion, British constitutional monarchistic democracy is a vastly different beast to other forms of government and I'd suggest you not make wild statements based on a foundation of apparently no knowledge whatsoever.