The First Amendment Thread (2 Viewers)

Apr 12, 2004
77,165
#1
First Amendment Explained

Congress [Juventuz Appointed and Proper] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government [of Juventuz] for a redress of grievances.

Look, one, this is gay. I started this because a Monarch I didn't think was worth time or space died. I think her passing is silly, she covered up pederasty and she was "beloved." More so in her death than in her last five decades of reign. We (I'm American) often overlook the past X amount of years for the Y amount of years where a British Raj existed, a re-written lineage and image of the Mid-East was drawn (prior to her reign), and the assassination of a Gandhi was overlooked. This does not take into account the Irish or others.


I start this thread for one sole purpose.

Ask your questions of Israelis as Palestinians, of Colonial Consort, as Free Ukrainians and Russians, but ask them here and here they fall and finish. This is not a fight thread. We respect all and are inclusive rather than exclusive here. Try to understand instead of react. If issues occur, and if you provoke, you will not be asked to leave, you will be told so.


This thread is for the exchange of ideas, opinions, and thoughts; all of which are by definition NOT absolute, they are opinions, not facts.

Here it stays, lads, be grown, be adults.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, how do I make the gavel the main thumbnail and my reason for actually starting this:

- - - Updated - - -

@Stevie

Without issue or anything, I want your opinion on the Queen's death. I think I will agree, but I want you to tell me. You're Irish? Let 'er whistle, big dog. We dont get this shit on the 24-hour networks in the states.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Attachments

Last edited:
OP
ßöмßäяðîëя
Apr 12, 2004
77,165
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #8
    I don't have any opinion on the Queen.

    When Britian become a democracy and how much control over affairs has the monarchy had during her lifetime? How much is she to blame for British atrocities against the 3rd world or the Irish?
    Probably more than you're aware, it's not even really a Democracy.

    Not that I set this up for just that, it just happened to be on my mind.
     

    swag

    L'autista
    Administrator
    Sep 23, 2003
    84,749
    #9
    I'm kinda digging some of the real vitriol going the queen's way that flies in the face of all the fluttering British hearts. Even more questionable are the fluttering non-British hearts.

    Like I love how her death has become a honeypot for people like Jeff Bezos to get dragged on the carpet:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-fire-after-tweet-about-queen-s-b2163071.html

    Way better than the more tepid responses like this dude:
    https://www.newsweek.com/tv-presenter-santiago-cuneo-queen-death-drinking-champagne-live-1741360
    though major props for the peeps in-country:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...fury-chip-shop-owner-celebrates-queens-death/

    But then it can easily get long in the tooth and turn into a proselytizing yawner. Take:
    https://www.teenvogue.com/story/queen-elizabeth-colonialism-oped

    Yeah, I'm no fan of capitalism's belching exhaust either. And colonialism celebrated all that too the maxxxxx.

    But seriously... at what point do we stop whining about crap that dead people did 400 years ago that none of us can change? Yes, there's a lot that's happened on her watch in her lifetime. But there's also a general obsessing about it that merely makes you a wallower looking for excuses not to use your agency in the now to make a difference, because you can't change what long dead people did.

    But above all, I didn't vote for any of these twats and their inbred Thalidomide baby deformities. The Kardashians are worse because they don't even have respectable bloodlines. But there's a reason most royalty around the world has come to an end at the end of a guillotine.
     
    Last edited:

    GordoDeCentral

    Diez
    Moderator
    Apr 14, 2005
    70,772
    #10
    I'm kinda digging some of the real vitriol going the queen's way that flies in the face of all the fluttering British hearts. Even more questionable are the fluttering non-British hearts.

    Like I love how her death has become a honeypot for people like Jeff Bezos to get dragged on the carpet:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-fire-after-tweet-about-queen-s-b2163071.html

    Way better than the more tepid responses like this dude:
    https://www.newsweek.com/tv-presenter-santiago-cuneo-queen-death-drinking-champagne-live-1741360
    though major props for the peeps in-country:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...fury-chip-shop-owner-celebrates-queens-death/

    But then it can easily get long in the tooth and turn into a proselytizing yawner. Take:
    https://www.teenvogue.com/story/queen-elizabeth-colonialism-oped

    Yeah, I'm no fan of capitalism's belching exhaust either. And colonialism celebrated all that too the maxxxxx.

    But seriously... at what point do we stop whining about crap that dead people did 400 years ago that none of us can change? Yes, there's a lot that's happened on her watch in her lifetime. But there's also a general obsessing about it that merely makes you a wallower looking for excuses not to use your agency in the now to make a difference, because you can't change what long dead people did.

    But above all, I didn't vote for any of these twats and their inbred Thalidomide baby deformities. The Kardashians are worse because they don't even have respectable bloodlines. But there's a reason most royalty around the world has come to an end at the end of a guillotine.
    Summed up with this:

    Screenshot_20220909-163112_Twitter.jpg
     

    Osman

    Koul Khara!
    Aug 30, 2002
    61,480
    #11
    I don't have any opinion on the Queen.

    When Britian become a democracy and how much control over affairs has the monarchy had during her lifetime? How much is she to blame for British atrocities against the 3rd world or the Irish?

    She was an active representative of the colonial repressions in the time they were fighting for independence. That's not an exaggeration at all.
     
    OP
    ßöмßäяðîëя
    Apr 12, 2004
    77,165
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #16
    Oh, it's exactly what I wanted. Just free expression of ideas. Bring that Nazi fuck back and allow him to only write in this thread.

    - - - Updated - - -

    They still have a non-insignificant role in the political system.

    Under Royal Assent, the monarch’s approval is required before any legislation passed by parliament can become law. For reference all Acts of Parliament since 1707 have been granted.

    There is also Queen’s (now King’s) Consent and Prince’s Consent, which gives the monarch/prince substantial influence over any bills that affect their private interests, property or powers, before they reach or are allowed to be discussed in parliament. This allows them to shape any prospective legislation that affects their wealth, effectively putting their estates above the law.

    All public servants (incl. police, military, etc.) and those applying for citizenship, must make an oath of allegiance of loyalty specifically to the monarch and their successors. Technically the armed forces don’t belong to the government, but to the crown (why you had an army general openly talking about staging a coup against a potential Corbyn government during the last general election).

    The Privy Council (a group of current/former gov. ministers and senior members of the royal family) have the power to secretly create laws known as Order in Council, under Royal Prerogative, without any parliamentary oversight. These usually pertain to foreign relations and administration of overseas territories. One of the most high profile uses of Orders in Council was in 2004 (under Tony Blair), when the UK banned the Chagossians (native inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago) from returning home, after they were forcibly expelled by the UK between 1968-1973 so the US could build a military base on one of the islands.

    Just one note on Ireland, the British para commander in charge on Bloody Sunday in 1972 (when 26 unarmed civilians were shot in Derry by his battalion), was given an OBE in October that year.
    This shit is all fucking retarded.
     
    OP
    ßöмßäяðîëя
    Apr 12, 2004
    77,165
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #17
    Do we have any relatively active Indian members?

    - - - Updated - - -

    I want the lowdown on their "neutrality" to the Ukraine situation. Fuck the Queen and the Crown, but you stink and I want answers.
     

    icemaη

    Rab's Husband - The Regista
    Moderator
    Aug 27, 2008
    36,316
    #18
    Do we have any relatively active Indian members?

    - - - Updated - - -

    I want the lowdown on their "neutrality" to the Ukraine situation. Fuck the Queen and the Crown, but you stink and I want answers.
    Hello Burkmeister! Here's my opinion.
    India has always maintained 'neutrality' when it comes to issues between the west and Russia. By neutrality, it's mostly doing business with both the US and Russia. It basically boils down to what it means for the economy and security of the country. We have two threats, China and Pakistan. Being pals with Russia helps keep them from being too close to China. When the US started being too close with Pakistan in the 70s (I think), it was the Russians who sold us military equipment. What I'm getting at is that this neutrality is nothing new. We trade with Iran (again one of the reason being to keep them from being too close to Pakistan) and the US, we recognise both Israel and Palestine. It just makes sense for the country and it has every right to make autonomous decisions. At the end of the day, the government's duty is towards its own people first.
    What's happening in Ukraine is terrible and Putin should get fucked. But it's not India's war. Same reason India doesn't call out the US or the Saudis for the Saudis fucking up Yemen. Or completely stop trade with the US even though they give tons of money to Pakistan who use some of it to facilitate cross border terrorism. As a relatively new country, we can't really afford to take hard ideological stands, especially in situations that don't directly concern us.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)