Right wingers less intelligent

[FridgeMagnet]

Talking about laws and rights cannot be described a narrow because they affect such a broad range of issues. You can choose whatever wider issue you like, but there will be rights and laws which affect it, and parliament will be able to shift the goalposts wherever and whenever they like to suit themselves without any consideration as to the rights of the population.

You're not talking about laws and rights. You are taking any instance of other people talking about laws and rights as an opportunity to promote a specific point of view, whatever the context, without reference to the context of what other people have been discussing.

This annoys people because it pays no attention to whatever it is that they have been saying. You're doing it to me right now in fact.

 

[Gmart]

You're not talking about laws and rights. You are taking any instance of other people talking about laws and rights as an opportunity to promote a specific point of view, whatever the context, without reference to the context of what other people have been discussing.

This annoys people because it pays no attention to whatever it is that they have been saying. You're doing it to me right now in fact.

I am of course talking about laws and rights, I am using the examples that others give, and that is part of a discussion. For example I could argue that right-wingers have freedom of speech the same as 'left-wingers', would this diversion into discussion about rights be declared irrelevant by yourself because I am no concentrating on the 'context' of other posters? Hopefully not, it is evidently pertinent to the OP.

You feel that I have a narrow agenda, which you do not describe but which could be described as being keen on gathering support for a written constitution. However, you are describing this topic as 'narrow', even though both the example above and most issues are underpinned by rights and laws.

So you seem to be criticising me for not concentrating on the issue that others would wish me to concentrate on - leaving aside that I have posters ignoring reams of posts and questions from myself with nary a hint of comment from yourself.

One set of rules for one set of people, one set of rules for another.

 

[purenarcotic]

I find this value laden description of Jews a bit problematic tbh.

Israel exists and thrives because it benefits capital, it's fuck all to do with religion or ethnicity, they're just happy coincidences.

I wasn't taling about Israel, I was talking about the ultra orthadox lot, who while perfectly entitled to live their life how they want, seem utterly mental to me. And I should know because I'm related to them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Fuck off Gmart. You tedious twat.

You forgot "pompous" and "self-righteous", Norm.

Shame on you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't consider the unlimited powers that our parliament have to be a narrow concern - far from it - it is a key issue which has ramifications in all parts of government, you could just as easily dismiss the legal system as 'narrow' too - but it also is important and has ramifications for all society.

More bullshit. Parliament doesn't have "unlimited" powers.

 

[butchersapron]

That is all part of being here really - I am aware that the posters here don't recognise the usual line concerning abuse, and yet I continue to post here which is my decision. Thanks for the thought though

Their response is:

The main posters here are stuck between agreeing with me on the principle that having some controls on parliament would be better than none, and wanting to replace the oppressive regime that we recognise, with their own version which would enjoy the same freedoms that the current unlimited powers enjoy. Butchers has already stated that he would not have such controls on parliament, thus identifying himself as the latter, whereas the rest tend to avoid the issue, abuse or misrepresent me.

Did i? Where? What on earth is wrong with you?

 

[DotCommunist]

Gmart going to fuck another thread with his hobby horse

 

[SpineyNorman]

Is there anything in the FAQ about not being a boring monomaniac who hijacks threads in order to satisfy a weird legal fetish? If not there should be IMO.

 

[butchersapron]

I take it we've all seen him at it here now as well. Astonishing. On a number of levels.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I take it we've all seen him at it here now as well. Astonishing. On a number of levels.

Hardly surprising he's soft on private ed, though, considering his employment history.
What was surprising was reading that you supported imposing no controls on Parliament.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Fuck controls on parliament - if we had those we wouldn't be able to replace one authoritarian system with another, which is what we all want 'cos Gmart said so. So controls on parliament would make me sad

 

[DotCommunist]

I just want to replace Us in the cage with Them in the cage. Because of class war. /gmart

 

[SpineyNorman]

If you click the link ba posted above you can see the logical conclusion of Gmart's ignorance of class in all its neoliberal glory.

 

[Gmart]

More bullshit. Parliament doesn't have "unlimited" powers.

It does, the Crown-in Parliament has the sovereignty in the UK constitution, so Parliament can legislate how it wishes without limit. Parliament saw the unlimited powers of the Monarchy and sought to hijack them for itself. In 1689 it had the opportunity to do so, and was successful. The only limits which Parliament has are self-imposed ones which it could get rid of tomorrow if it wishes.

You all try to paint this position as 'simplistic', but the only reason why I continue to ask this is because I expected you all to know the history and the constitutional set up of the UK.

[...]What was surprising was reading that you supported imposing no controls on Parliament.

He stated elsewhere that he wouldn't have a written constitution which specifically restricts the unlimited powers of his own parliament as I have described them - thus the conclusion that he wishes to replace one authoritarian system with his own 'more enlightened version' is logical. If he wishes to describe how he would constrain the power of our rulers (I am assuming that your solutions are all versions of representative democracies), then why not specifically state how this would be done? The same goes for all of you - if you actually answered the questions as to what your plan is then this whole dance between me asking and you avoiding answer would not have to happen.

 

[SpineyNorman]

What parliament? I suspect your assumption is flawed.

And you've already been told how - by the same means as the existing order would be altered.

 

[butchersapron]

He stated elsewhere that he wouldn't have a written constitution which specifically restricts the unlimited powers of his own parliament as I have described them - thus the conclusion that he wishes to replace one authoritarian system with his own 'more enlightened version' is logical. If he wishes to describe how he would constrain the power of our rulers (I am assuming that your solutions are all versions of representative democracies), then why not specifically state how this would be done? The same goes for all of you - if you actually answered the questions as to what your plan is then this whole dance between me asking and you avoiding answer would not have to happen.

Who said i wanted a parliament? I don't.

And no i didn't. Find me that quote not your bizarre weirdo extrapolation.

 

[butchersapron]

(I am assuming that your solutions are all versions of representative democracies)

Assume all you want.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Have you ever thought, Gmart, that if you made less assumptions about the beliefs of others you might not get such a hard time? Who knows, you might even learn something.

 

[butchersapron]

Have you ever thought, Gmart, that if you made less assumptions about the beliefs of others you might not get such a hard time? Who knows, you might even learn something.

Do find time to read his past threads about libertarianism, economics, islam and other expert subjects. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[SpineyNorman]

With all due respect, I think I'll give it a miss

 

[butchersapron]

Nah mate, you're missing comedy gold. Really.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Couldn't resist in the end - just having a look through his old threads and picking out ones to skim - I've noticed a pattern - he'll start a thread, get called on his bullshit, then start the exact same thread with a slightly different slant/title. He appears to have been banging the written constitution drum since 2006 and he's started something like 10 threads on the subject (sometimes under the pretext of the social contract or citizenship. That's just not healthy.

 

[butchersapron]

He cares, that's all. If i remember right the libertarianism one is very good value.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I'm enjoying the "forms of government" one, where he endorses a batshit mental American libertarian "analysis" of the left/right spectrum.

Great piece of advice from barkingmad on that thread:

You're arguing with a fool. You should never argue with a fool as first they drag you down to their level and then they beat you with experience.

 

[Gmart]

Who said i wanted a parliament? I don't.

You are more extreme than I thought - i assumed that you would at least respect the majority position that the UK wants a representative democracy. Seeing as you have therefore stated that you would have no parliament, then I understand why you wouldn't have constraints on such a body. So unless you want straight out Anarchy, you will need to have some rules (if you don't give them then the population would turn to the army to force you). Thus what restrictions would you have then on either side?

I am surprised that so many here consider your views of importance seeing as you basically want to impose your views on the whole population without giving them a choice.

Reference to the Supreme Court striking down the Texas Laws against sodomy, would such a thing be able to happen in your ideal system?

I see why you are so reluctant to go into details now.

 

[butchersapron]

Laugh/cry?

 

[Gmart]

Laugh/cry?

Simple question Butchers - if you refuse to accept representative democracy to populate a parliament - then what are you going to replace it with?

 

[butchersapron]

When?

 

[SpineyNorman]

LOL

 

[frogwoman]

ive not been following this (perhaps thats a good thing) but lol gmart why do you think a written constitution is so great? i mean what difference do you think it would make to the uk? do you not think that the rulers would frame the constitution in such a way that it would help them carry on doing whatever they're doing, for example by writing whatever bad shit they wanted to do into the constitution, writing the constitution so it says they have huge powers? or for that matter by ignoring it completely like for example what happened under the soviet union which had on paper the "best" rights to free speech etc in the world? or mexico under the pri with its constitution saying everyone has a right to a house, a job etc?

i really don't understand why you think its so important because it really isn't!