while that is an excellent caption, Thatcher did plenty wrong
Grayson Russell
No I don't mean recruiters.
Oliver Wright
...
Kevin Hill
not that Thatcher is uniquely responsible
Jackson Morgan
Why do you beat your 4 inch prick to Nappy and hide your trip when arguing about subjects you know nothing about?
Brody Rivera
>Lol no I didn't. I said the precedent is 3 centuries old and to go against it would cause constitutional crisis.
Where does that show that she can't do it?
>O wait it doesn't
Good on you for proving my point.
Levi Scott
Give it a rest pal
Easton Walker
Why do you hide your trip when talking utter horseshit though?
Samuel Smith
I know, after 8 or so hours of missing the point you think he'd give up.
Tyler Lopez
Why did you hide your trip you civic law cuck?
Camden Peterson
Don't kick that off again lads. Been at it all day, can't handle it all night as well...
Jeremiah Watson
What a little bitch you are
David Thomas
>Why do you hide your trip when talking utter horseshit though?
I wasn't talking horseshit tbf.
I said she should, and could, speak more forcefully regarding the national crises we face. Eddie then missed the point entirely, and said, "but it would cause a constitutional crisis".
No doubt one would be engineered, but again that was never the point. I never said there wouldn't be ramifications.
Cameron Diaz
>he supports a system of law that isn't derived from precedent like Napoleon implemented State of you euro cucks
Brandon Jackson
I was more concerned with the horseshit directed at me in which you resorted to talking about the colonisation of India and Queen Victoria to change the subject over the course of 7 hours.
David White
>knows he's wrong >hides trip BTFO BONAPARTE
Lincoln Price
They did, but then you replaced them with old ones remember?
Zachary Wright
What would it take to redpill this guy?
Thomas Perez
You are a fucking disgrace.
Evan Perry
I made the 4 editions before you decided to steal a bunch of my links, then I made some new ones with 2 oldish but relevant ones and archived them all.
Charles Perry
I still feel like you've missed my point over and over again.
My point was:
>The Queen should be more vocal.
Now, there is no doubt this would arouse constitutional problems, but that was never the point I was making.
That wasn't with you, that was with the guy who criticised 1688. All I stated was that we likely wouldn't have colonised India without it, and I believe this.
I hid my trip so if I was wrong pride wouldn't prevent me from conceding.
Jackson Rivera
seeThose were new links which you have replaced with old ones. Fuck off you BTEC Rightly
James Morgan
I'm richer than you though lad tbqh
William Sullivan
Notice how he concedes my point that it would cause a constitutional crisis but also tries to make out that it wasn't the point because he was only LARPing, despite his constant refusal that precedent is the primary source of UK constitution. No wonder he hid his trip.
Isaiah Miller
>That wasn't with you, that was with the guy who criticised 1688. All I stated was that we likely wouldn't have colonised India without it, and I believe this That was me. It was me all day you were arguing with besides from Eddie, and you were wrong so many times it hurt my brain.
I posted the links to the old ones you used you utter fucking mong.
Jason Parker
Would greater unity emerge among the states if we moved the capital from london to somewhere more central to scotland,wales,england and NI?
Noah Green
Who else here hard-line monarchist national conservative?
Daniel Cruz
>Hello, my name is Mr.Tumnus.
Blake Rodriguez
genetic snap chat filter
Evan Perry
I was actually angry at some point today, but the more he crumbled the funnier it got and now the whole hidden trip has made it hilarious. NappyTheMan permanently disgraced.
Evan Baker
>That was me. It was me all day you were arguing with besides from Eddie, and you were wrong so many times it hurt my brain.
I was correct, broadly.
1. If the Queen wanted to, she could be more vocal
2. The Queen should be more vocal
3. Without the Glorious Revolution we wouldn't have taken India
4. Without control of all India, our Empire wouldn't have been anything special.
5. Dutch economic systems gave us an advantage over our French and Spanish adversaries.
All five of these points have not been effectively countered
Is that why you've spent all day countering points I didn't make?
Hunter Phillips
>if I make a point, get BTFO then pretend my point was something else, I win >better hide my trip though HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA FUCKING STATE OF YOU NAPPY
Chase Brooks
Not only did you dodge every single one of my points, you brought up the colonisation of India which was completely irrelevant to change the subject. Go back and read it, it's embarrassing on your behalf.
James Nguyen
Nappy you're too much! If you were as mobile in Russia as you are with your points, we may very well be tricolourcucks after all.
Thomas Myers
CAN YOU TRIPNONCES SHIT THE FUCK UP
Brandon Thompson
>tfw my died-in-the-wool 60s lefty mum now regularly comes out with stuff that would make tommy Robinson blush
What have I done lads
Parker Reyes
This bit was beautiful. I would genuinely adore the Queen if she did this, or if Charles did it later down the line.
Luis King
It's not codified. DanTheMan says we can't do it.
Evan Fisher
trip nonces will never stick their dick in me lol I'm a girl as well
Grayson Torres
>if I make a point, get BTFO then pretend my point was something else, I win
Read my earlier post regarding the trip.
Again, counter points 1 and 2, else I'll just have to assume you've accepted defeat. My points haven't changed.
I said this morning that the defender of the faith refusing to defend the faith (You clearly mistook this for an argument for the pulling of constitutional levers, which it was not) is inexcusable. This then expanded into her opinions on national crises.
You then said she couldn't do this, and I disagreed. I asked you to provide a good reason. You said it was down to precedent. Considering that like cases haven't been heard, you're essentially stating that a crisis would occur.
However, the outcome of said crisis is not a foregone conclusion, especially with support for the monarchy at 75%.
Thomas Johnson
omg a grill post armpits
Caleb Garcia
I never said it wasn't illegal. I merely stated the benefits of 1688, which was enormous prosperity and power.
My whole point was that whatever the legal or political ramifications were, they must be understood in the wider geopolitical, economic, and imperial context
Blake Sanders
>All this spin You really are SEETHING
Jonathan Murphy
Reminder AMW IS OURGAL.
Jacob Young
Post tits.
Blake Williams
whos actually the next king/queen if lizzy dies
Jaxon Powell
It's not spin, it's just what happens when you spend all day talking oranges, while your opponent is talking pears.
Charles Taylor
You UK faggots are so screwed. Erdogans going to invade Europe and at the same time you're going to have an islamic insurrection on your hands, funded and armed by Soros.
Charles Campbell
seriously just fuck off Sup Forums is big enough for girls to be a likely part of of it at this point stop being pathetic foerever virgins
Isaac Gonzalez
>Gove confirms foreign access to UK fishing grounds
Well we did try to tell the dumb cunt Unionists
Carter Hughes
Thinking of going for a research degree tbqh lads.
Gavin Martin
cant take a joke mate seriously think i want to see your armpits??
Owen Murphy
I am so angry all the time, all I think about is the downfall of our country and the west and how we can fix it, everytime I turn on the TV I am faced with the same foreign faces, black brown and everything in between, the constant pandering to non whites with taxpayers money, I can't take it anymore, I fear that in time if things do not begin to change I will go postal
Evan Wood
Prince Charles.
Nathaniel Walker
I swear fishing access has always been shared
Juan Lopez
You anonymous posting is oranges and your triposting is pears. Take the trip off, you've been embarrassed into exile (ptg)
Anthony Fisher
We weren't even arguing over 1688. We were discussing constitutional law and you used the entire subject to change the subject because you were only capable of slightly altering what your question was over the course of 7 hours.
You said the Queen should be able to have an opinion, when I asked you to elaborate you simply said the same so I told you she can, and gave examples of her speaking up in favour of the Church of England's role in our constitution, but also explained why we would be unlikely to ever hear a speech from a Royal in regards to immigration or a heated topic of that nature, you then added the words "forcefully" and "strongly" to your shit point, claiming she should force her opinion on parliament. I cited precedent and the Act of Union 1707 and 1688 as the basis for this and you changed the subject.
After this, you also hinted that you meant Royal Assent, but when you were informed on that topic, you completely changed the subject again and went back to playing around with the words "strongly" and "opinion."
Blake Davis
Points 1 and 2 weren't your point lmao you were claiming law had nothing to do with precedent! Fucking hell you're cracking me up lad. It's pathetic, >hide trip >make statement so retarded multiple posters aggressively shoot him down >desperately try to defend his point p...precedent means nothing in law >get completely destroyed th... that wasn't my real point... >continues to get BTFO until people start to ignore him >feels lonely Lel... i... i sure won that argument about these lists of points that weren't even my argument >get aggressively BTFO again >tries to defend himself but his tears cloud his eyes >forget to remove his trip >accidently click post
This is probably the funniest shit I've seen in a long time. You've been BTFO harder than Waterloo Nappy.
Dylan Perry
This is a politics board, maybe try starting a British thread on
Ryder Young
>You anonymous posting is oranges and your triposting is pears.
Explain.
Julian Rogers
how likely is charles to dissolve parliament or order an act to kill all pakis
Or is he cucked
Cameron Harris
what we up to tonight lads?
Colton Moore
>makes a poll asking who won the argument and wins by 1 vote (probably his own)
John Phillips
>What have I done Not enough IT won't be enough until the formation of active paramilitaries forces the collapse of government, and the re-establishment of monarchist primacy backed by a traditionalist and TRULY conservative military, service running through every lineage
Henry Walker
Sorry, but you're beneath me. I don't have to explain shit to you.
Ayden Sanchez
>tfw you've got BTFO so hard you need to go back into education to recover
Joshua Scott
Might watch this. Name of show?
Elijah Hall
I'm gonna alternate between weight lifting and watching SS-GB to fuel my kraut hate.
Kevin Diaz
He made a poll?
Sebastian Smith
I have no idea, was hoping someone here would know.
Evan Thomas
Shit I missed that! Fucking hell the utter state.
Evan Perry
any other girls here got tips for getting rid of hiccups?
I also want to know seen that clip numerous times but no one has mentioned what its from
Adrian Harris
>45any other girls here got tips for getting rid of hiccups? Yes honey, I get my boyfriend to give me a good fucking xx
Jacob Wood
...
Jaxon James
>We weren't even arguing over 1688.
No, but you mentioned it, and I felt compelled to defend it. Not constitutionally; it was plainly illegal, but in terms of Britain's place in the world.
>You said the Queen should be able to have an opinion, when I asked you to elaborate you simply said the same so I told you she can, and gave examples of her speaking up in favour of the Church of England's role in our constitution, but also explained why we would be unlikely to ever hear a speech from a Royal in regards to immigration or a heated topic of that nature, you then added the words "forcefully" and "strongly" to your shit point, claiming she should force her opinion on parliament. I cited precedent and the Act of Union 1707 and 1688 as the basis for this and you changed the subject.
I never claimed she should force her opinion on parliament. That's not what "forcefully" or "strongly" means. I was referencing her influencing the public opinion strongly, not trying to force MPs to vote the way she wants them to.
>After this, you also hinted that you meant Royal Assent
If I did that was purely accidental; that was never my intention.
>Points 1 and 2 weren't your point
Objectively untrue, I said case law precedent would not stop the Queen from stating her opinion, because there are no like cases to extract applicable principles from. I recognised the fact the move is unprecedented would cause constitutional chaos, as politicians try to grapple and stop this new behaviour. However, you stated the outcome of any potential crisis is that the Queen would lose out, while I feel if done correctly there would be enough public support to ensure the monarchy prevails.
