Political Crossfire Forums

[maxtsu]

A.D wrote: Quote:

Uh uh uh english doesn't uh uh have to be the uh dominant language. Good on ya mate, why don't we all just grunt like apes. Your opening paragraph is so muddled up with bad grammar, hidious sentence structure and spelling so horrendous that I have absolutely no idea what you are saying. You should concerntrate on mastering the basics of the english language before deciding on alternatives.

Working a few hours a day and where did it get them? The only human inhabited continent that did not produce the bow and arrow. They also did not invent the wheel or even made a house. Not a very technologically advanced people by any means. I judge a culture by its influences on other cultures and the impact it makes on the world stage

I just made a couple of spelling and grammar corrections for you Dave, thank me latter.
touché
Not many things make me laugh on this site. But this post did.

[Golddave]

Fist in the air wrote: Golddave, wouldnt the quality of life for all of the members of a grouping of people be the most important thing.

Why invent a wheel if you dont need one. If your life is ok as it is why change it? That is the idiocity of the wests philosiphy.

Their are many parts of Indiginous culture that were superior to our own, their knowlage of natural resources, etc.

You are being racist for putting down a people because they are different and do not match the western critera you judge them on.

try think outside the western capitalist system you live under. ?
Man you are a communist, no doubt about it. I am not a racist and I resent being called one. Explain to me how their knowledge of natural resources was better then ours. We mine uranium, it can be used amongst other things to make nuclear weapons, thats a pretty impressive knowledge of natural resources. By inventing the wheel you make your life easier, you evolve, you are available to achieve things previously unthought of. Think outside the box, its not going to hurt!

[Golddave]

maxtsu wrote: A.D wrote: Quote:

Uh uh uh english doesn't uh uh have to be the uh dominant language. Good on ya mate, why don't we all just grunt like apes. Your opening paragraph is so muddled up with bad grammar, hidious sentence structure and spelling so horrendous that I have absolutely no idea what you are saying. You should concerntrate on mastering the basics of the english language before deciding on alternatives.

Working a few hours a day and where did it get them? The only human inhabited continent that did not produce the bow and arrow. They also did not invent the wheel or even made a house. Not a very technologically advanced people by any means. I judge a culture by its influences on other cultures and the impact it makes on the world stage

I just made a couple of spelling and grammar corrections for you Dave, thank me latter.
touché
Not many things make me laugh on this site. But this post did.

I am surprised you could keep up with all the big words. I didn't mean to bamboozle you, you should thank your mum for her help. Tell her she spelt later wrong to. Cheers

[Fist in the air]

I didnt call you a racist i said you were perpetuating racist attitudes that denegrate a group of people because their culture is different than yours.

Define achievement?

By inventing the wheel you are able to create a society where individuals are expected to use that wheel, the invention can be used by one indivdual to better exploit another for personal wealth.

Sure the wheel is a good thing in some societies but if people had a style of life they were quite happy with why change it.

Better knowlage of natural resources - living sustainbly with the land, utlising every part of a resource that is killed otherwise only taking a part that will allow the resource to continue to thrive. Going to a natural eco-system and being able to identify and use many various different parts of naturally occuring vegetation without the need to work to grow it yourself.

haha you can't spell either.

[battleax86]

Y'all do realize that there's a SpelChek button right next to the Submit button, don't you?

[BlueEmperor1]

watermelon wrote: BlueEmperor1 wrote:

How are our constitutional monarchies 'autocratic'?

How is WWII an example?

What are you talking about? The vast, overwhelming majority of Brits totally and unreservedly support The Queen. She has served this country and the Commonwealth faithfully and diligently for over 50 years! She is much-loved and respected by all.

B.E.

1) An autocratic system may be said to be subservient to the whims of a single ruler or that of its aristocracy.....and the house of Lords is?

2) In the second world war the British forces quite openly decided to centralize its defense of its Empire on Britain. A small ill equipped, brigade defending Singapore did little in the defense of Australia or the other Pacific 'colonies.' That defense came from our own initiatives and the aid of the US

3) Do the vast majority of Britons support the Queen? why toy with having a referendum to decide over a republic? How can you judge what is the 'overwhelming opinion' of the British...a vast proportion of your country cant even be bothered to turn out to vote?!.

and finally how has the Queen served the Commonwealth in the last Fifty years? By being a highly paid civil servant with an out dated position to 'rubber-stamp' all legislation presented to her? or just as a useful civic icon to wheel out on public occasions.

Having family estates, a Noble lineage and expensive tastes in vulgar clothing does not equate to being a useful leader of a society.

1) Neither the United Kingdom nor the Commonwealth of Australia are "subservient to the whims of a single ruler of that of its aristocracy" and to suggest otherwise is nonsensical.

2) And the relevance of this to the monarchy debate is...??

3) Yes, the vast majority of Britons support The Queen, as numerous polls attest to.

4) Her Majesty's service to the Commonwealth over the last 50 years has been self-evident. She is the glue that binds that organisation together - and numerous world leaders have testified as much.

B.E.

[Fist in the air]

Under Capitalism If you scare people enough often they vote for you because the economic system makes them feel insecure.

[battleax86]

Fist in the air wrote: Under Capitalism If you scare people enough often they vote for you because the economic system makes them feel insecure.
It's true that scare tactics often win votes, but that has little to do with capitalism. The same thing can be said for just about any economic system. The exception to this would be socialism because it doesn't matter who you vote for or how much work you put in, you'll still get same wage. Of course, socialism has proven itself to be a failure, time and time again. The Soviets tried it and failed. The Chinese tried it and failed. The North Koreans are still clinging to it and their people are starving as a result. People will use scare tactics in any just about any situation to win votes, but capitalism has proven itself to be the only successful economic system.

BlueEmperor1 wrote: 1) Neither the United Kingdom nor the Commonwealth of Australia are "subservient to the whims of a single ruler of that of its aristocracy" and to suggest otherwise is nonsensical.

2) And the relevance of this to the monarchy debate is...??

3) Yes, the vast majority of Britons support The Queen, as numerous polls attest to.

4) Her Majesty's service to the Commonwealth over the last 50 years has been self-evident. She is the glue that binds that organisation together - and numerous world leaders have testified as much.

B.E.
I agree that the British monarchy is important to the unity of Britain and the British Commonwealth, as a whole. Although the monarchy is politically irrelevant, it's importance is the one thing that Britons can agree on, similar to the Constitution in the United States.

[BlueEmperor1]

battleax86 wrote: I agree that the British monarchy is important to the unity of Britain and the British Commonwealth, as a whole. Although the monarchy is politically irrelevant, it's importance is the one thing that Britons can agree on, similar to the Constitution in the United States.

And I would hope that the Australian monarchy was equally important to the unity of Australia. I, at any rate, reject the notion that the monarchy is politically irrelevant. Like the US Constitution, the monarchy is of fundamental importance to the entire framework of our political system. The person of the Queen is, perhaps, of less importance, but the institution of 'the Crown' is vital for our democracy to function.

B.E.