quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I gave you the rules (no, you didn't you got your dick in your hands)

[Grammatically (no)] the Constitution and Bill of Rights is a document that lays out the organic law that is supposedly agreed upon by all parties [(no)] adopted by the states as the attorneys for [as in representing] the people [(no)], not a contract between the states attorney's and the federal guv.

I tie my shoes.  Grammatically correct?  What the fuck are you on about?  Did Thomas Jefferson hold the Faculty Administrators Chair at Oxford for English?

No.
and your next problem, is:

the italics in your babbling jibberish could easily be replaced with the words, bag of cement.

You havent any premises that lead to those conclusions.

The sky is blue.
The sea is sometimes green.
A madman said that dogs can snorkle underwater.
Therefore the soveriegnty of the United States government flows from the states attorneys.

Those are your typical specious and illogical arguments because even your building blocks are inchoate and malformed.

This saved me a post anyhow. It should be obvious to all the the reasons for capitalisations in the Constitution rest on the clerk capitalising All Nouns, a common habit in those days, as Ron stated.

Nouns are still capitalized in German.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

That unlike the constitution, people can actually read her poems without being driven mad by boredom and believing all sorts of bizarre nonsense?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

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.

Yeah you’re right about that. I had a look on line and it seems to be policy to invite the pre-existing prime-minister to form a government in the case of hung parliament. The strange thing is that when I read about what happened it was made to sound like the Queen has unduly significant power to simply be a figurehead. Largely the same point seemed the same on a BBC doc I saw a few years back!

Much the same as people reading RO`s arguments and taking them as fact. It is easier to make something fit an argument than to look at the plain and simple truth. The Queen has limited powers in the UK and none in the US.

quote:

Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 1778

The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997

---------------------------------------

Crown Copyright 1997

All Crown Copyrights are reserved. The following are concessions. Individuals are authorised to download this text to file or printer for their own individual use. Reproduction of the text for the purpose of developing and publishing value-added products is also allowed, without prior permission or charge, provided reproduction is accurate, not malicious and is accompanied ** an acknowledgment of Crown copyright.

Any other proposed reproduction requires the consent of the Copyright Unit at Her Majesty's Stationery Office. For more details on the reproduction of Crown and Parliamentary copyright material, see the latest Her Majesty's Stationery Office Dear Publisher letter.

The text of this Internet version of the Statutory Instrument has been prepared to reflect the text as it was Made. The authoritative version is in printed form and is published ** The Stationery Office Limited as the The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997, ISBN 0 11 0646983, ú2.40 sterling. For details of how to obtain a printed copy see How to obtain The Stationery Office Limited titles.

-------------------------------------------------
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
-------------------------------------------------

1997 No. 1778

SOCIAL SECURITY

The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997

Made 22nd July 1997

Coming into 1st September force 1997

At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 22nd day of July 1997

Present,

The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council

Whereas at London on the 13th February 1984 an Agreement on social security between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement" and an Administrative Agreement for the implementation of the Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the Administrative Agreement" were signed on behalf of those Governments and effect was given to the Agreement ** the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Order":

And Whereas at London on 6th June 1996 a Supplementary Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America (which Supplementary Agreement is set out in Schedule 1 to this Order and is hereinafter referred to as "the Supplementary Agreement" amending the Agreement and a Supplementary Administrative Agreement amending the Administrative Agreement (which Supplementary Administrative Agreement is set out in Schedule 2 to this Order and is hereinafter referred to as "the Supplementary Administrative Agreement" were signed on behalf of those Governments:

And Whereas ** Article 3 of the Supplementary Agreement it is provided that the Supplementary Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the third month following the month in which each Government has received from the other Government written notification that all statutory and constitutional requirements have been complied with for entry into force of the Supplementary Agreement:

And Whereas ** Article 2 of the Supplementary Administrative Agreement it is provided that the Supplementary Administrative Agreement shall enter into force on the date of entry into force of the Supplementary Agreement:

And Whereas written notification in accordance with Article 3 of the Supplementary Agreement was received ** each Government on 20th June 1997 and accordingly the Supplementary Agreement and the Supplementary Administrative Agreement enter into force on the 1st September 1997:

And Whereas ** section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 it is provided that Her Majesty may ** Order in Council make provision for modifying or adapting that Act and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 in their application to cases affected ** agreements with other Governments providing for reciprocity in matters specified in the said section:

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, in pursuance of section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and of all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is pleased, ** and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is here** ordered, as follows: -

Citation and commencement
1. This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997.

Modification of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and amendment of the Principal Order

2. The Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 shall be modified and the Principal Order shall be amended so as to give effect to the Agreement as modified ** the Supplementary Agreement set out in Schedule 1 to this Order and to the Administrative Agreement as modified ** the Supplementary Administrative Agreement set out in Schedule 2 to this Order, so far as the same relate to England, Wales and Scotland.

Amendment of Order
3. The reference to the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984 shall be omitted in the Schedule to the Social Security (Reciprocal Agreements) Order 1988 and in Schedules 2 and 3 to the Social Security (Reciprocal Agreements) Order 1995.

N.H. Nicholls
Clerk of the Privy Council

SCHEDULE 1
Article 2

SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT AMENDING THE AGREEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America;

Having considered the Agreement on Social Security which was signed on their behalf at London on 13th February 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement";

Having recognised the need to revise certain provisions of the Agreement;

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1
1. Article 1 of the Agreement shall be revised as follows:

(a) Paragraph 1 shall be revised to read as follows:

" 1. "Territory" means,

as regards the United States, the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and as regards the United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and also the Isle of Man, the Island of Jersey, and the Islands of Guernsey, Alderney, Herm and Jethou; and references to the "United Kingdom" or to "territory" in relation to the United Kingdom shall include the Isle of Man, the Island of Jersey, and the Islands of Guernsey, Alderney, Herm and Jethou where appropriate;".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
This saved me a post anyhow. It should be obvious to all the the reasons for capitalisations in the Constitution rest on the clerk capitalising All Nouns, a common habit in those days, as Ron stated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Does not mean he changed his personal views.

Not changing one's views over a lifetime would just be stupid and incredibly unobservant.

Lets see, now when I was a child I determined that "murder is really bad".

I guess now that I am older I should change my views and its really good now.

What kind of looney road is that?

Is there a real point in there somewhere other than the obvious frivolous argument?

Your spin on things doesn't mean he didn't mean what he said when he changed his views either.

History is spin? 

Support your claim.  I have not seen anything ever, that would imply such a thing.  Adopting someone elses reasoning in a democratic effort is not the same as changing ones personal views.

PRECISELY where did he change his "views"?

There are ideals. There is what works. Pat came to see the difference.

There is no evidence what so ever that is the case.  Purely spin on your part.

Kind of silly to suppose a once blatantly outspoken man suddenly become docile and compliant. But if he did...not so top shelf. Me...I respect the man, and trust he was speaking his truth, his entire life.

I already explained to you that when operating as a democracy, you know the biggest gang wins, then you have 2 choices; either wage war against the other gang, or throw in your support of your new gubmint.

Now unless you have something that specifically shows otherwise, and I have no intention to scour the net looking for what you have at your fingertips, then post it.  Otherwise your whole position is frivolous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
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.

Yeah you’re right about that. I had a look on line and it seems to be policy to invite the pre-existing prime-minister to form a government in the case of hung parliament. The strange thing is that when I read about what happened it was made to sound like the Queen has unduly significant power to simply be a figurehead. Largely the same point seemed the same on a BBC doc I saw a few years back!

Much the same as people reading RO`s arguments and taking them as fact. It is easier to make something fit an argument than to look at the plain and simple truth. The Queen has limited powers in the UK and none in the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Much the same as people reading RO`s arguments and taking them as fact. It is easier to make something fit an argument than to look at the plain and simple truth. The Queen has limited powers in the UK and none in the US.

absolute trash!

Another brit play on words!

quote:

Convention holds that, in the event of a hung Parliament, the sitting prime minister gets the first chance to try to form a government — even if his party wins fewer seats than the opposition — by making a formal coalition or a looser alliance with another party.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Literally all nouns can also function as a "Capitonym" in english.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Does not mean he changed his personal views.

Not changing one's views over a lifetime would just be stupid and incredibly unobservant.

Lets see, now when I was a child I determined that "murder is really bad".

I guess now that I am older I should change my views and its really good now.

What kind of looney road is that?

Is there a real point in there somewhere other than the obvious frivolous argument?

Your spin on things doesn't mean he didn't mean what he said when he changed his views either.

History is spin? 

Support your claim.  I have not seen anything ever, that would imply such a thing.  Adopting someone elses reasoning in a democratic effort is not the same as changing ones personal views.

PRECISELY where did he change his "views"?

There are ideals. There is what works. Pat came to see the difference.

There is no evidence what so ever that is the case.  Purely spin on your part.

Kind of silly to suppose a once blatantly outspoken man suddenly become docile and compliant. But if he did...not so top shelf. Me...I respect the man, and trust he was speaking his truth, his entire life.

I already explained to you that when operating as a democracy, you know the biggest gang wins, then you have 2 choices; either wage war against the other gang, or throw in your support of your new gubmint.

Now unless you have something that specifically shows otherwise, and I have no intention to scour the net looking for what you have at your fingertips, then post it.  Otherwise your whole position is frivolous.

Addressing the blue crap, in order:

Addressing the black shit in order:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Not changing one's views over a lifetime would just be stupid and incredibly unobservant.

I guess now that I am older I should change my views and its really good now. [MURDER]

What kind of looney road is that?

1) Clearly a bullshit construction, and you know it. All views aren't going to change, and certainly not the extreme nonsense you posit.

On the contrary it is perfectly constructed to fit the loonacy of the statement referenced.

2) No, history isn't spin--YOUR TAKE on it is spin. I clearly said that.

My take is well researched history with distinction and dicernment.

3) Support the claim? It's Patrick's own words.

Support your view that he was a plain spoken man but then decided to just go along with the opposition. How likely is that?

THAT's the difference between history and spin.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
This saved me a post anyhow. It should be obvious to all the the reasons for capitalisations in the Constitution rest on the clerk capitalising All Nouns, a common habit in those days, as Ron stated.

Literally all nouns can also function as a "Capitonym" in english.

Next people will be saying the constitution was written in kenyan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Interesting that the first link, cute and all, takes you to, right at the top, the link I cited, which you obviously didn't read. I even linked to the target part of the page dealing with his later years.

Your other link is unrelated bull, of course.

Like your argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

RO, you do realise your For educational purposes only post was regards an AGREEMENT between our two countries right ? 

NO! lol

Somehow I doubt it. Still for clarity and anyone who may fall for your crap. The Queen has no powers to create UK Law.

Thats not true, if she can abolish the government she has the power, if you want to fool yourself be my guest but it aint gonna happen here.

Wellllllllll unless you want to claim that the queen is not a sovereign?  I sort of know you wont stick it on that chopping block LOL

If she is not sovereign then and only then are you correct.

Parliament make the law the Queen rubber stamps it. End of story.

I would put money on you not having a clue, not only in eneral, but on what this Act actually is. No doubt you will Google some more B/s and get back to me with more meaningless drivel.

Oh I have been "told" many times from people with no citations to back it up! LOL   Wanna "tell" me again?

quote:

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1
1. Article 1 of the Agreement shall be revised as follows:

(a) Paragraph 1 shall be revised to read as follows:

" 1. "Territory" means,

as regards the United States, the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and as regards the United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and also the Isle of Man, the Island of Jersey, and the Islands of Guernsey, Alderney, Herm and Jethou; and references to the "United Kingdom" or to "territory" in relation to the United Kingdom shall include the Isle of Man, the Island of Jersey, and the Islands of Guernsey, Alderney, Herm and Jethou where appropriate;".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You're the one with the Google link. Keep going down the page.

Oh, I forget....YOU don't need sources.

Bye indeed.

quote:

President George Washington offered Henry the post of Secretary of State in 1795, which he declined out of opposition to Washington's Federalist policies. However, following the radicalism of the French Revolution Henry's views changed as he began to fear a similar fate could befall America and by the late 1790s, Henry was in support of the Federalist policies of Washington and Adams. He especially denounced the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which had been secretly written by Jefferson and Madison, and approved by the legislatures of those two states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Literally all nouns can also function as a "Capitonym" in english.

Even "slave"? The weal and twues might have something to say about people capitalising that one...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
This saved me a post anyhow. It should be obvious to all the the reasons for capitalisations in the Constitution rest on the clerk capitalising All Nouns, a common habit in those days, as Ron stated.

Literally all nouns can also function as a "Capitonym" in english.

Next people will be saying the constitution was written in kenyan.

You have some front talking of plays on words. You know little and understand even less. Your plethora of posts on this page show that to anyone with half a brain. If you think all nouns can act as a Capitonym then you are sadly mistaken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Just more games as if the queen has no power and you and your fdriends have said that since the begining of time and not ONE of you put up any kind of brit law that supports what you claim.

remember I understand how to read the shit so dont try to pull a fast one on me now LOL