RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf!

RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

HannahLynHeather -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/14/2011 8:03:45 PM)
and i still don't give a flying fuck.

Politesub53 -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 3:28:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Well sure....I ,myself am awful fearful when my Domme picks up the single tail. Do you play pin the tail on the donkey ? [8D]

rulemylife -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 4:39:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather and i still don't give a flying fuck. You have to join the mile high club for that.

Moonhead -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 4:54:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The monarchy did not really abrogate any of their own power. They just spread it out. They lost almost all of them, and are now merely a figurehead. The fact that Britain has a democratic parliament in the first place is generally seen as proof of that by people who don't wear tinfoil on their heads...

Anaxagoras -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 9:10:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The monarchy did not really abrogate any of their own power. They just spread it out. They lost almost all of them, and are now merely a figurehead. The fact that Britain has a democratic parliament in the first place is generally seen as proof of that by people who don't wear tinfoil on their heads... Didn't the Queen invite Ted Heath to form a government in 1974 even though he got less seats than Labour?

Real0ne -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 2:26:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The monarchy did not really abrogate any of their own power. They just spread it out. They lost almost all of them, and are now merely a figurehead. The fact that Britain has a democratic parliament in the first place is generally seen as proof of that by people who don't wear tinfoil on their heads... sure but you all want to have it both ways and that is not possible. You cannot have a monarchy that has the power to abolish the government and at the same time call them a figurehead. It simply can not work that way. that is the problem with the way things are taught to the public at large now days. They do a great job creating cognitive dissonance in people because they use bs language that creates an incorrect impression, or they do not take one extra step and explain the legal ramifications.

mnottertail -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 2:31:14 PM)
The monarchy does not have the power to abolish the government. She must be asked to dissolve parliament by the Prime Minister. Your both ways is wearing thin. You present false dichotomies and never has even one of the presentments left the egg or seen the light of day.

Real0ne -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 2:37:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx You know, RO, all this spam about 'we the people' shows you have a serious problem with English grammar. I will give you a basic lesson. The subject of the sentence is the do-er. The object of the sentence is the do-ee. Thus you have this sentence: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Now in this sentence, the subject is in italics and the object is in bold. This sentence says that people are making a constitution for a country. It does not say that the constitution is making a country for the people. Now I could see the confusion if this were in Russian or some other language that completely screws with subject/object placement, but this is pretty clear to me. so you agree with me then? First you realize the word "People" is a proper noun right? That sentence is much more complicated than you realize and would take I would guess 3 to 4 pages of text to full analyze every jot and jittle to logically prove it all out. Next you presume that the United States of America is a country rather than an association. I think before we get to the point of analyzing the sentence we need to know who or what we are talking about. I have no evidence that the word "People" applies to me, but I could make a damn good case that the supreme court screwed us in its interpretation which I believe is based on the way it was sold as compared to its functional intention. The you must also realize there are many proper nouns in that sentence that are not a matter of emphasis as the propaganda would have it but of proper construction with specific annexed meaning. you can verify this for yourself if you look at the document where they emphasized we the people, and do

mnottertail -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 2:39:01 PM)
Yeah, well scribble away, you always do. Nobody is going to bother with it, they never do. We know how to construct sentences, and what words mean.

Real0ne -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 2:40:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail The monarchy does not have the power to abolish the government. She must be asked to dissolve parliament by the Prime Minister. Your both ways is wearing thin. You present false dichotomies and never has even one of the presentments left the egg or seen the light of day. thats not the way I read it, if you have citations in "law" in englands case it would be an act, not your usual wiki bullshit I am all ears. It must show she does not have the power without the consent of parliament. AND that she agreed to it. This is a queen you know not some dumb assed citizen who sits back and says duh ok whatever.

Real0ne -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 2:44:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, well scribble away, you always do. Nobody is going to bother with it, they never do. We know how to construct sentences, and what words mean. then how come she had it wrong? how come you got it wrong? oh and if you want to take a shot at it tell us what all that means. Here you go champ! Complete with correct punctuation. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. go for it! The only hting that is a no brainer is: "this Constitution" all the rest that in bold need to be identified/specified.

mnottertail -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 2:56:13 PM)
Yeah, well your inability to read englische as she is goodley spokene is of no consequence or no surprise. The Prime minister must after 5 years or change in the balance of party or upon a vote of confidence ask the Queen to dissolve parliament. What does that mean? It is like an American election, they stay there in the buildings twaddling around mucking shit up, business as usual, until the outcomes of the elections are known and the elected are seated. It isn't a case of the Cabbage saying, 'ere!!!! You blokes 'ave fair pissed me off!!! I am sick o' yer randy gubs!!!! Off wit' yer powdered wigs, the lot o' yous!!! To the Tower!!! C'mon corgis!!! Walkies!!!! You have to get over reading the Magna Carta and get up to 1649 and Charlie the Tupster to understand constitutional monarchy and what you are talking about which you do not have any clue of at the moment.

Real0ne -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 3:01:21 PM)
citations in law or your typing is a waste of time. while you dream up more humor for us you still have that little problem of also showing us how well you understand sentence structure and the meaning of the preamble. cheeree ho

mnottertail -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 3:05:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Yeah, well scribble away, you always do. Nobody is going to bother with it, they never do. We know how to construct sentences, and what words mean. then how come she had it wrong? how come you got it wrong? oh and if you want to take a shot at it tell us what all that means. Here you go champ! Complete with correct punctuation. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. go for it! The only hting that is a no brainer is: "this Constitution" all the rest that in bold need to be identified/specified. So, no quibble with our? First you must define what you mean by bold, then you must define what you mean by means, then you must define what no brainer is, then you must define why the fuck I would sit here and tutor you on your inability to understand the word 'our' it is a possessive pronoun, work it out from there (it is alot like 'we', since you didn't have that bolded, close enough for the delusional) but you got a handle on ordain and establish do you?

Real0ne -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 3:10:44 PM)
sounds like you agree with me then that you took the big one in the ass from the supreme court, in the multitude of decisions that claim that the 10 amendments really mean the "States". the language we use today in this conversation between you and I, I presume is no problem but you cannot apply that to the language used 200 years ago when some of todays words did not even exist. I was perfectly clear in what I am looking for, or if you prefer to strip out the whole thing go for it. knock yourself out. I just pointed out highlights for you to start explaining the meaning of so we can all be on the same page starting out. May take the lazy mans route and just tell us how the supreme court concluded that we the People really meant we the States.

mnottertail -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 3:22:41 PM)
First you realize the word "People" is a proper noun right? No, it is not. It is a pronoun. 'the People of the United States' is; with the use of the preposition 'of' (linking it to the United States) does not describe Ron Melby only and specifically (my name is a 'Proper' noun) but is intended to describe that class of people (We) situated in the like circumstance of all the confederacy whos nomenclature is the United States. And beyond that, there isnt a goddamn thing.

mnottertail -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 3:24:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne sounds like you agree with me then that you took the big one in the ass from the supreme court, in the multitude of decisions that claim that the 10 amendments really mean the "States". the language we use today in this conversation between you and I, I presume is no problem but you cannot apply that to the language used 200 years ago when some of todays words did not even exist. I was perfectly clear in what I am looking for, or if you prefer to strip out the whole thing go for it. knock yourself out. I just pointed out highlights for you to start explaining the meaning of so we can all be on the same page starting out. May take the lazy mans route and just tell us how the supreme court concluded that we the People really meant we the States. Nope, it might sound like Thus Spoke Zarathustra to you for all I give a fuck, I do not agree with your delusional conspiracy pudpounding in any manner whatsoever.

Politesub53 -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 4:57:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The monarchy did not really abrogate any of their own power. They just spread it out. They lost almost all of them, and are now merely a figurehead. The fact that Britain has a democratic parliament in the first place is generally seen as proof of that by people who don't wear tinfoil on their heads... Didn't the Queen invite Ted Heath to form a government in 1974 even though he got less seats than Labour? Yes, but she was following the rules of Parliament. Labour had more seats than the Conservatives but not enough for overall control. As Heath was the existing Prime Minister he was asked to try and form a government (In consensus with any other party) There was another election later that year, Labour had more seats than heath, but this time enough to form a majority government, albeit by just three seats.

Politesub53 -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 5:03:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne thats not the way I read it, if you have citations in "law" in englands case it would be an act, not your usual wiki bullshit I am all ears. It must show she does not have the power without the consent of parliament. AND that she agreed to it. This is a queen you know not some dumb assed citizen who sits back and says duh ok whatever. Yet again you are wrong, I have told you this so often and provided you with relevant information and/or links. You chose to ignore it, as it dispels you dumb ass theories of UK laws and protocols. Its good to know you are all ears, just a shame you have nothing between them.

mnottertail -> RE: Patrick Henry is top shelf! (7/15/2011 5:36:26 PM)
Cabbage accepts the constitutional monarchy at where? Was she crowned at Winsor or Buckingham? Nevermind the bleeding Archie of Canterbury ponce cotillion. She accepted all rules and protocols and laws of the land for which they tapped that Claymore 'pon her several times instead of stuck her like a pig with it.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875