FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Catalan Fugitives
Catalan Fugitives
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Looks like Puidgemont and his pals could be returning to Spain in handcuffs. How must ordinary Catalan Nationalists be feeling now? Promised so much and delivered nothing." Maybe they should ask the SNP supporters on here...as they promised everything and delivered nothing as well  | |||
| |||
"8 jailed until the hearings and one released on a 50.000 euro bond all members of the Catalan parliament " so basically the leaders bolted so that the underlings would get it!!! so much for the heroic el presidente!!! a true man of his convictions leading from the front
i don't think the spanish really want the belgians to inact the EAW because you end up making a martyr of him.... but it makes "Carles" look bad for running! | |||
| |||
"So it seems as though the former Catalan leaders refused to voluntarily attend court. I wonder why they would do that? The prosecutors have now requested a European Arrest Warrant be issued for them. Yet again the leaders show their distain for the rule of law." Within living memory 5 Catalan Presidents have been forced into exile, one of those was captured, tortured and executed The Catalan people understand why Carles puigdemont is in Belgium, even if you don't | |||
"Looks like Puidgemont and his pals could be returning to Spain in handcuffs. How must ordinary Catalan Nationalists be feeling now? Promised so much and delivered nothing. Maybe they should ask the SNP supporters on here...as they promised everything and delivered nothing as well "SNP politicians have been tweeting non stop about supporting the Catalans indy claims and yet they refuse to recognise Catalonia as an independent nation. It's been pretty damn funny to watch and has left many of the rabble baffled  | |||
"Lots of sympathy for the fascists on here from the usual suspects. Very disturbing, but no great surprise." I asked you before about what specifically facist tendencies have been displayed here and you were unable to answer. Will you try this time? | |||
| |||
"It is the Euro way,soon we will be out of it" Euro way ?  | |||
| |||
| |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy" They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same | |||
"It is the Euro way,soon we will be out of it Euro way ? "Yes very nationalistic far more so than the British we are unique in that way in Western Europe I think. | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same "There is that SNP bad shite again God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ? | |||
"It is the Euro way,soon we will be out of it Euro way ? Yes very nationalistic far more so than the British we are unique in that way in Western Europe I think."I think you have that backwards. | |||
"It is the Euro way,soon we will be out of it Euro way ? Yes very nationalistic far more so than the British we are unique in that way in Western Europe I think."Really...in what way are we unique ? | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
"I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium | |||
| |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium "Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ? | |||
"Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ?" The mental gymnastics required to liken Rosa Parks to Carlos Puigdemont also requires 3 bottles of Scotch first | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium
Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ?"Theres a huge difference to what she was trying to achieve...is that so difficult to understand | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium
Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ?
Theres a huge difference to what she was trying to achieve...is that so difficult to understand "Good way of shitting out of answering a question lol You said and i quote ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct'' So am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ? | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium
Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ?
Theres a huge difference to what she was trying to achieve...is that so difficult to understand
Good way of shitting out of answering a question lol
You said and i quote ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
So am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
"And im saying there a huge difference... | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium
Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ?
Theres a huge difference to what she was trying to achieve...is that so difficult to understand
Good way of shitting out of answering a question lol
You said and i quote ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
So am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
And im saying there a huge difference... "3rd time you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ? You the one that said this and i quote again ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct'' If you crap yourself this time from answering i will take that as you would have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for doing something that was deemed illegal at that time. | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium
Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ?
Theres a huge difference to what she was trying to achieve...is that so difficult to understand
Good way of shitting out of answering a question lol
You said and i quote ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
So am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
And im saying there a huge difference...
3rd time you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
You the one that said this and i quote again ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
If you crap yourself this time from answering i will take that as you would have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for doing something that was deemed illegal at that time.
"And i'll quote again what she was doing was totally different....would you call the UK government wrong in the 70s and 80s with the IRA | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium
Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ?
Theres a huge difference to what she was trying to achieve...is that so difficult to understand
Good way of shitting out of answering a question lol
You said and i quote ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
So am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
And im saying there a huge difference...
3rd time you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
You the one that said this and i quote again ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
If you crap yourself this time from answering i will take that as you would have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for doing something that was deemed illegal at that time.
And i'll quote again what she was doing was totally different....would you call the UK government wrong in the 70s and 80s with the IRA "Ok thank you for shitting out answering Your the one that claimed you would be happy to see people go to jail for doing illegal activities so by that you would happy to have seen Rosa Parks go to jail for doing illegal activities shame on you | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium
Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ?
Theres a huge difference to what she was trying to achieve...is that so difficult to understand
Good way of shitting out of answering a question lol
You said and i quote ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
So am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
And im saying there a huge difference...
3rd time you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
You the one that said this and i quote again ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
If you crap yourself this time from answering i will take that as you would have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for doing something that was deemed illegal at that time.
And i'll quote again what she was doing was totally different....would you call the UK government wrong in the 70s and 80s with the IRA
Ok thank you for shitting out answering
Your the one that claimed you would be happy to see people go to jail for doing illegal activities so by that you would happy to have seen Rosa Parks go to jail for doing illegal activities shame on you"And i'll say this again and i know it dosent suite your independence agenda....its totally different...now answer the question about how the IRA were treated trying to unite Ireland...was the UK government wrong in how they handled them | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium
Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ?
Theres a huge difference to what she was trying to achieve...is that so difficult to understand
Good way of shitting out of answering a question lol
You said and i quote ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
So am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
And im saying there a huge difference...
3rd time you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
You the one that said this and i quote again ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
If you crap yourself this time from answering i will take that as you would have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for doing something that was deemed illegal at that time.
And i'll quote again what she was doing was totally different....would you call the UK government wrong in the 70s and 80s with the IRA
Ok thank you for shitting out answering
Your the one that claimed you would be happy to see people go to jail for doing illegal activities so by that you would happy to have seen Rosa Parks go to jail for doing illegal activities shame on you
And i'll say this again and i know it dosent suite your independence agenda....its totally different...now answer the question about how the IRA were treated trying to unite Ireland...was the UK government wrong in how they handled them "Sorry your demanding i answer you but you shit out of answering me yeah right Answer mine then i will be happy to answer yours | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium
Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ?
Theres a huge difference to what she was trying to achieve...is that so difficult to understand
Good way of shitting out of answering a question lol
You said and i quote ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
So am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
And im saying there a huge difference...
3rd time you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
You the one that said this and i quote again ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
If you crap yourself this time from answering i will take that as you would have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for doing something that was deemed illegal at that time.
And i'll quote again what she was doing was totally different....would you call the UK government wrong in the 70s and 80s with the IRA
Ok thank you for shitting out answering
Your the one that claimed you would be happy to see people go to jail for doing illegal activities so by that you would happy to have seen Rosa Parks go to jail for doing illegal activities shame on you
And i'll say this again and i know it dosent suite your independence agenda....its totally different...now answer the question about how the IRA were treated trying to unite Ireland...was the UK government wrong in how they handled them
Sorry your demanding i answer you but you shit out of answering me yeah right
Answer mine then i will be happy to answer yours"I did answer it....i said its totally different from your independence agenda...now return the favour | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium
Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ?
Theres a huge difference to what she was trying to achieve...is that so difficult to understand
Good way of shitting out of answering a question lol
You said and i quote ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
So am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
And im saying there a huge difference...
3rd time you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
You the one that said this and i quote again ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
If you crap yourself this time from answering i will take that as you would have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for doing something that was deemed illegal at that time.
And i'll quote again what she was doing was totally different....would you call the UK government wrong in the 70s and 80s with the IRA
Ok thank you for shitting out answering
Your the one that claimed you would be happy to see people go to jail for doing illegal activities so by that you would happy to have seen Rosa Parks go to jail for doing illegal activities shame on you
And i'll say this again and i know it dosent suite your independence agenda....its totally different...now answer the question about how the IRA were treated trying to unite Ireland...was the UK government wrong in how they handled them
Sorry your demanding i answer you but you shit out of answering me yeah right
Answer mine then i will be happy to answer yours
I did answer it....i said its totally different from your independence agenda...now return the favour "No you didnt Lets take the Catalan issue our right now and focus on what you said said about sending people to jail for illegal activities You said you would be happy to see people go to jail for doing illegal activities i am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for doing illegal activities? Am curious to know if you would have been happy to see Rosa Parks send to jail thats all since you thought people should go to jail for that | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium
Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ?
Theres a huge difference to what she was trying to achieve...is that so difficult to understand
Good way of shitting out of answering a question lol
You said and i quote ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
So am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
And im saying there a huge difference...
3rd time you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
You the one that said this and i quote again ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
If you crap yourself this time from answering i will take that as you would have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for doing something that was deemed illegal at that time.
And i'll quote again what she was doing was totally different....would you call the UK government wrong in the 70s and 80s with the IRA
Ok thank you for shitting out answering
Your the one that claimed you would be happy to see people go to jail for doing illegal activities so by that you would happy to have seen Rosa Parks go to jail for doing illegal activities shame on you
And i'll say this again and i know it dosent suite your independence agenda....its totally different...now answer the question about how the IRA were treated trying to unite Ireland...was the UK government wrong in how they handled them
Sorry your demanding i answer you but you shit out of answering me yeah right
Answer mine then i will be happy to answer yours
I did answer it....i said its totally different from your independence agenda...now return the favour
No you didnt Lets take the Catalan issue our right now and focus on what you said said about sending people to jail for illegal activities
You said you would be happy to see people go to jail for doing illegal activities i am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for doing illegal activities?
Am curious to know if you would have been happy to see Rosa Parks send to jail thats all since you thought people should go to jail for that
"And i said its totally different...and she was punished according to the law....do i agree she should had been ...no she was fighting for her HUMAN rights....totally different....now please answer my question  | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium
Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ?
Theres a huge difference to what she was trying to achieve...is that so difficult to understand
Good way of shitting out of answering a question lol
You said and i quote ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
So am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
And im saying there a huge difference...
3rd time you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
You the one that said this and i quote again ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
If you crap yourself this time from answering i will take that as you would have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for doing something that was deemed illegal at that time.
And i'll quote again what she was doing was totally different....would you call the UK government wrong in the 70s and 80s with the IRA
Ok thank you for shitting out answering
Your the one that claimed you would be happy to see people go to jail for doing illegal activities so by that you would happy to have seen Rosa Parks go to jail for doing illegal activities shame on you
And i'll say this again and i know it dosent suite your independence agenda....its totally different...now answer the question about how the IRA were treated trying to unite Ireland...was the UK government wrong in how they handled them
Sorry your demanding i answer you but you shit out of answering me yeah right
Answer mine then i will be happy to answer yours
I did answer it....i said its totally different from your independence agenda...now return the favour
No you didnt Lets take the Catalan issue our right now and focus on what you said said about sending people to jail for illegal activities
You said you would be happy to see people go to jail for doing illegal activities i am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for doing illegal activities?
Am curious to know if you would have been happy to see Rosa Parks send to jail thats all since you thought people should go to jail for that
And i said its totally different...and she was punished according to the law....do i agree she should had been ...no she was fighting for her HUMAN rights....totally different....now please answer my question "Wow your all over the place so you think people should be jailed for illegal activities but then change your mind by saying you wouldnt have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for illegal activities lol Now you bring up Human rights lol Wow just wow i bet you think the Catalan peoples human rights were not broke on the 1st Oct 2017 | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium
Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ?
Theres a huge difference to what she was trying to achieve...is that so difficult to understand
Good way of shitting out of answering a question lol
You said and i quote ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
So am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
And im saying there a huge difference...
3rd time you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
You the one that said this and i quote again ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
If you crap yourself this time from answering i will take that as you would have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for doing something that was deemed illegal at that time.
And i'll quote again what she was doing was totally different....would you call the UK government wrong in the 70s and 80s with the IRA
Ok thank you for shitting out answering
Your the one that claimed you would be happy to see people go to jail for doing illegal activities so by that you would happy to have seen Rosa Parks go to jail for doing illegal activities shame on you
And i'll say this again and i know it dosent suite your independence agenda....its totally different...now answer the question about how the IRA were treated trying to unite Ireland...was the UK government wrong in how they handled them
Sorry your demanding i answer you but you shit out of answering me yeah right
Answer mine then i will be happy to answer yours
I did answer it....i said its totally different from your independence agenda...now return the favour
No you didnt Lets take the Catalan issue our right now and focus on what you said said about sending people to jail for illegal activities
You said you would be happy to see people go to jail for doing illegal activities i am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for doing illegal activities?
Am curious to know if you would have been happy to see Rosa Parks send to jail thats all since you thought people should go to jail for that
And i said its totally different...and she was punished according to the law....do i agree she should had been ...no she was fighting for her HUMAN rights....totally different....now please answer my question
Wow your all over the place so you think people should be jailed for illegal activities but then change your mind by saying you wouldnt have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for illegal activities lol
Now you bring up Human rights lol
Wow just wow i bet you think the Catalan peoples human rights were not broke on the 1st Oct 2017
"I knew you wouldn't answer....and like i said earlier....its totally different ....and totally nothing to do with independence | |||
| |||
" God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol " Kinky, that is the most hypocritical comment I have read on these forums! You show your hatred for elected parties in England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland almost every time you post on here! | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie if she did the same "Ah the childish,petty name calling again are you sure your old enough to be on here | |||
"Looks like Puidgemont and his pals could be returning to Spain in handcuffs. How must ordinary Catalan Nationalists be feeling now? Promised so much and delivered nothing. Maybe they should ask the SNP supporters on here...as they promised everything and delivered nothing as well "Scotland has much more to offer than rest of UK, perhaps you are just venting your "green eye monster" . seems like you have a huge chip on your shoulder mister.  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Really? Scotland again?" Yes it seems some ppl are obsessed by us and how happy with life we are | |||
"Really? Scotland again? Yes it seems some ppl are obsessed by us and how happy with life we are "Dont seem very happy to me with the way you Nats go on....just saying | |||
"Really? Scotland again? Yes it seems some ppl are obsessed by us and how happy with life we are
Dont seem very happy to me with the way you Nats go on....just saying "Kinky is never happy! | |||
| |||
| |||
"If they aren't careful they will invite the Catalans to take up arms ! Arrange another vote internationally recognised and monitored , agreed by both sides and if thier is s majority ? Job done and we have a new country ! If not hopefully it will be accepted ! A majority to me is 51 per cent !" Very true Mr suit .Political prisoners can often create an armed political wing.  | |||
"If they aren't careful they will invite the Catalans to take up arms ! Arrange another vote internationally recognised and monitored , agreed by both sides and if thier is s majority ? Job done and we have a new country ! If not hopefully it will be accepted ! A majority to me is 51 per cent !" but if the catalan government knew full well at the beginning they needed a 2/3rd overall majority from the catalan parliament to proceed under both spanish and catalan law, then your cant complain... the issues i have is that they knew this!!! so to get around that they changed the rules without any vote or any debate........ then it hasn't followed the correct process' i have mixed feelings on what the spanish government did... I don't think the rebellion or sedition charges will stick or should have been brought! however, I have absolutely no problem with them being charged with embezzlement in relation to misusing public money.. because once it was deemed illegal because they didn't follow their own rules....... the should not have then gone on to have a vote that more than half of the population then boycotted! | |||
| |||
"oh... and i am so glad that the rosa park comparison wasn't labelled at one of my answers... because i know for a fact that my reply would have gotten me 72hrs on the naughty step... it is ridiculous that comparison has been made but i am not surprised at how low some people will stoop!!!" With Rosa Park it was born out of desperation and trying to link it to independence was just ridiculous | |||
| |||
"oh... and i am so glad that the rosa park comparison wasn't labelled at one of my answers... because i know for a fact that my reply would have gotten me 72hrs on the naughty step... it is ridiculous that comparison has been made but i am not surprised at how low some people will stoop!!!" The Rosa Parks nonsense argument was mentioned on the 'Wings' twitter feed. Kinky has just read it and is parroting it, like most things he posts on here. That's why he doesn't have answers for anything when challenged. Wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even know who she was initially. | |||
"oh... and i am so glad that the rosa park comparison wasn't labelled at one of my answers... because i know for a fact that my reply would have gotten me 72hrs on the naughty step... it is ridiculous that comparison has been made but i am not surprised at how low some people will stoop!!! The Rosa Parks nonsense argument was mentioned on the 'Wings' twitter feed. Kinky has just read it and is parroting it, like most things he posts on here. That's why he doesn't have answers for anything when challenged. Wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even know who she was initially." I didnt even know it was on the wings twitter page Is no one allowed to think for themselves now ? Lol Ao pro indy people only read wings now lmao there is plenty of sites and its not fucking hard to look up history Oh and am not trying to link independence and Rosa Parks Am pointing out he claimed he would be happy for people to go to jail for doing something illegal all i done was ask a question if he thought Rosa Parks should have gone to jail Fucking hell your not even allowed to asking questions on here lol | |||
"oh... and i am so glad that the rosa park comparison wasn't labelled at one of my answers... because i know for a fact that my reply would have gotten me 72hrs on the naughty step... it is ridiculous that comparison has been made but i am not surprised at how low some people will stoop!!! The Rosa Parks nonsense argument was mentioned on the 'Wings' twitter feed. Kinky has just read it and is parroting it, like most things he posts on here. That's why he doesn't have answers for anything when challenged. Wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even know who she was initially. I didnt even know it was on the wings twitter page Is no one allowed to think for themselves now ? Lol Ao pro indy people only read wings now lmao there is plenty of sites and its not fucking hard to look up history Oh and am not trying to link independence and Rosa Parks Am pointing out he claimed he would be happy for people to go to jail for doing something illegal all i done was ask a question if he thought Rosa Parks should have gone to jail Fucking hell your not even allowed to asking questions on here lol" If your not trying to link it to an illegal attempt to gain independence....why mention it ? | |||
 | |||
"How many frigates again "13 ships! | |||
| |||
"13 rubber dingies "Tens of billions of pounds worth of ships! | |||
"Looks like Puidgemont and his pals could be returning to Spain in handcuffs. How must ordinary Catalan Nationalists be feeling now? Promised so much and delivered nothing. Maybe they should ask the SNP supporters on here...as they promised everything and delivered nothing as well " | |||
"If they aren't careful they will invite the Catalans to take up arms ! Arrange another vote internationally recognised and monitored , agreed by both sides and if thier is s majority ? Job done and we have a new country ! If not hopefully it will be accepted ! A majority to me is 51 per cent ! but if the catalan government knew full well at the beginning they needed a 2/3rd overall majority from the catalan parliament to proceed under both spanish and catalan law, then your cant complain... the issues i have is that they knew this!!! so to get around that they changed the rules without any vote or any debate........ then it hasn't followed the correct process' i have mixed feelings on what the spanish government did... I don't think the rebellion or sedition charges will stick or should have been brought! however, I have absolutely no problem with them being charged with embezzlement in relation to misusing public money.. because once it was deemed illegal because they didn't follow their own rules....... the should not have then gone on to have a vote that more than half of the population then boycotted!" I don't agree with any vote needing 3 thirds ! Brexit wouldn't have happened if that was the case ! Whoops I may have started something  | |||
"If they aren't careful they will invite the Catalans to take up arms ! Arrange another vote internationally recognised and monitored , agreed by both sides and if thier is s majority ? Job done and we have a new country ! If not hopefully it will be accepted ! A majority to me is 51 per cent ! but if the catalan government knew full well at the beginning they needed a 2/3rd overall majority from the catalan parliament to proceed under both spanish and catalan law, then your cant complain... the issues i have is that they knew this!!! so to get around that they changed the rules without any vote or any debate........ then it hasn't followed the correct process' i have mixed feelings on what the spanish government did... I don't think the rebellion or sedition charges will stick or should have been brought! however, I have absolutely no problem with them being charged with embezzlement in relation to misusing public money.. because once it was deemed illegal because they didn't follow their own rules....... the should not have then gone on to have a vote that more than half of the population then boycotted! I don't agree with any vote needing 3 thirds ! Brexit wouldn't have happened if that was the case ! Whoops I may have started something "But that's what their laws say! It's the same in many countries for constitutional change, the US for example. | |||
| |||
"Spanish governments since Franco have followed a flawed constitution, yet many here are content to quote illegality, whereas democratic principles trump laws, where the latter are unjust and in need of reform. The point about Rosa Parks, by the way, is perfectly valid, in as much as the same principle applies: without unjust laws being challenged and exposed, reform never happens. None of the rights which we enjoy and often take for granted, would have been offered without the actions of those who are prepared to challenge the status quo. The Spanish political establishment is little more than a continuity wing of its militaristic predecessor. There are significant deficiencies in Spain's claim to democratic credentials. Its legal system is flawed, property rights are dubious, civic corruption is unacceptably high, it has a paramilitary police force which is prepared to attack innocent citizens and interfere with the democratic process. Moreover, any so-called democracy which is prepared to jail political opponents and issue arrest warrants, with extradition requests no less, on the basis of sedition and rebellion....sounds like fascism to me. A central government which continues Franco's policy of denying the democratic aspirations of the previously independent Catalans is not only anti-democratic but also morally bankrupt. The refusal of the EU to censure Rajoy for his repressive actions is also most telling. These people, like some on here, just love the big state and detest any movement towards devolving power closer to the people. When pro-Madrid demonstrators call for the imprisonment of politicians, make fascist salutes and afterwards share drinks and jokes with the paramilitary police thugs....if it looks, moves and smells like a fascist, there is a good chance that we are looking at fascism. Like the Scots' attitude to the wee whorehouse on the Thames, the Catalans look at the corrupt and abusive nature of the Palace of Moncloa and decide: we deserve better. Good luck to Catalonia. " You last sentence simply destroyed any credibility with your post....just another whinging nat ? | |||
"Spanish governments since Franco have followed a flawed constitution, yet many here are content to quote illegality, whereas democratic principles trump laws, where the latter are unjust and in need of reform. The point about Rosa Parks, by the way, is perfectly valid, in as much as the same principle applies: without unjust laws being challenged and exposed, reform never happens. None of the rights which we enjoy and often take for granted, would have been offered without the actions of those who are prepared to challenge the status quo. The Spanish political establishment is little more than a continuity wing of its militaristic predecessor. There are significant deficiencies in Spain's claim to democratic credentials. Its legal system is flawed, property rights are dubious, civic corruption is unacceptably high, it has a paramilitary police force which is prepared to attack innocent citizens and interfere with the democratic process. Moreover, any so-called democracy which is prepared to jail political opponents and issue arrest warrants, with extradition requests no less, on the basis of sedition and rebellion....sounds like fascism to me. A central government which continues Franco's policy of denying the democratic aspirations of the previously independent Catalans is not only anti-democratic but also morally bankrupt. The refusal of the EU to censure Rajoy for his repressive actions is also most telling. These people, like some on here, just love the big state and detest any movement towards devolving power closer to the people. When pro-Madrid demonstrators call for the imprisonment of politicians, make fascist salutes and afterwards share drinks and jokes with the paramilitary police thugs....if it looks, moves and smells like a fascist, there is a good chance that we are looking at fascism. Like the Scots' attitude to the wee whorehouse on the Thames, the Catalans look at the corrupt and abusive nature of the Palace of Moncloa and decide: we deserve better. Good luck to Catalonia. " Right, lets take a look at Rosa Parks then. Did they say "this is a stupid law, lets ignore it, but keep in on the books" or did they say "this is a stupid law, let's repeal it"? Yes, the repealed it. Laws can become out of date and no longer relevant, but a civilised society recognises and changes those laws, it doesn't just ignore them. The Spanish constitution was written after Franco's death. Nothing to do with him. Nothing that you mention as "sounds like fascism to me" is specifically fascist. You are incorrectly using the term, which not only reflects poorly on you, but also weakens the term when it is correctly used. The rule of law, where all laws apply to all people, irrelevant of their position in society, is a cornerstone of democracy. You are trying to abandon this, and suggest that laws shouldn't apply to politicians. I think you'll find the current wide ranging sex scandals around the world stems from powerful people believing that laws don't apply to them. I do not think that is something that we should be promoting. You have ignored the fact that the independence movement not only ignored the laws of Spain, but also ignored the laws of Catalonia. Ignoring the 2/3 majority that they needed to approve an independence referendum. | |||
| |||
| |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. " Tbh no the USA with those outdated laws they had wasn't civilised...same can be said of Thatchers government of the time dealing with the miners....but some think shes the best PM this country ever had | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. " Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? " To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. | |||
" I don't agree with any vote needing 3 thirds ! Brexit wouldn't have happened if that was the case ! Whoops I may have started something "you'd be surprised at how many countries require some sort of "super majority" to change law or constitutional matters..... or how many political parties.... for example, ahem, *coughs* snp *coughs* use exactly the same concept.... that is the reason why where they may side with the final result, they can't condone the antics that got them there!!! I do think it is interesting that his underlings were prepared to go to madrid and face the charges but el presidente is not.... I would say that really doesn't show the leader in the best light! i would say they are higher people of ther convictions than the boss is! | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed." And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob?" Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.  | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules. "So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? "You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom . | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom . "Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes? | |||
| |||
"Easy to say that sitting in Cambridge. But you obviously haven't delved into the subject matter of your post too far. Nine of the Catalan 'leaders' are already in jail, facing charges of rebellion which carries a 30 year jail term. Rebellion under Spanish law is the use of violence to subvert the state, but in this case, as you might have seen from Cambridge, the only violence has come from Spanish police during the 'referendum'. If you were former president Carles Puigdemont, would you return to a country which is obviously setting out not to give you a fair trial and to jail you for the rest of your life for simply carrying out your election manifesto? And we are taking about a PP government which has been accused by the courts of being institutionally corrupt, by running a slush fund which 'donors' pay into so they can unfairly secure lucrative public contracts and then have the cash handed out to the party top brass. The PP government admonish the Catalan government for not obeying the law, when they themselves are the most corrupt party in Europe. And don't forget, the Catalans are being jailed because they want to vote... but some people don't like democracy ...." maybe he should had tried to hold the referendum legally then....just like the Scots did...it was easy for them...they never printed there own ballot papers ect etc...or told voters to printer out there own papers....it was a sham...he knows it thats why hes legged it off to Brussels...just pointing out some stuff from Grimsby | |||
"Easy to say that sitting in Cambridge. But you obviously haven't delved into the subject matter of your post too far. Nine of the Catalan 'leaders' are already in jail, facing charges of rebellion which carries a 30 year jail term. Rebellion under Spanish law is the use of violence to subvert the state, but in this case, as you might have seen from Cambridge, the only violence has come from Spanish police during the 'referendum'. If you were former president Carles Puigdemont, would you return to a country which is obviously setting out not to give you a fair trial and to jail you for the rest of your life for simply carrying out your election manifesto? And we are taking about a PP government which has been accused by the courts of being institutionally corrupt, by running a slush fund which 'donors' pay into so they can unfairly secure lucrative public contracts and then have the cash handed out to the party top brass. The PP government admonish the Catalan government for not obeying the law, when they themselves are the most corrupt party in Europe. And don't forget, the Catalans are being jailed because they want to vote... but some people don't like democracy ...." So you are saying the judiciary are independent of the government? Therefore there is no reason to believe that he can't receive a fair trial in Spain. If he hasn't committed the crime he has been accused of, then he'll be found not guilty. Don't forget, he broke Catalan law as well as Spanish by manipulating the rules needed to push the referendum through the Catalan parliament. | |||
"Easy to say that sitting in Cambridge. But you obviously haven't delved into the subject matter of your post too far. Nine of the Catalan 'leaders' are already in jail, facing charges of rebellion which carries a 30 year jail term. Rebellion under Spanish law is the use of violence to subvert the state, but in this case, as you might have seen from Cambridge, the only violence has come from Spanish police during the 'referendum'. If you were former president Carles Puigdemont, would you return to a country which is obviously setting out not to give you a fair trial and to jail you for the rest of your life for simply carrying out your election manifesto? And we are taking about a PP government which has been accused by the courts of being institutionally corrupt, by running a slush fund which 'donors' pay into so they can unfairly secure lucrative public contracts and then have the cash handed out to the party top brass. The PP government admonish the Catalan government for not obeying the law, when they themselves are the most corrupt party in Europe. And don't forget, the Catalans are being jailed because they want to vote... but some people don't like democracy .... So you are saying the judiciary are independent of the government? Therefore there is no reason to believe that he can't receive a fair trial in Spain. If he hasn't committed the crime he has been accused of, then he'll be found not guilty. Don't forget, he broke Catalan law as well as Spanish by manipulating the rules needed to push the referendum through the Catalan parliament. " | |||
| |||
| |||
"The Spanish state, the PP government, would not allow them to hold a legal referendum. Yes, the referendum was illegal, but that is what they were elected to do. The majority in the Catalan parliament was there with a mandate to hold a referendum. The simple solution would be for the state allow a legal referendum but they are two stubborn and afraid of democracy to allow that to happen" No, the constitution prohibits it. | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes? "Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing. | |||
"The Spanish state, the PP government, would not allow them to hold a legal referendum. Yes, the referendum was illegal, but that is what they were elected to do. The majority in the Catalan parliament was there with a mandate to hold a referendum. The simple solution would be for the state allow a legal referendum but they are two stubborn and afraid of democracy to allow that to happen No, the constitution prohibits it. " The constitution can be changed... and has been changed when it suits the national government | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing. "But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right? You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph? If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine? Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right? Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing. "The poll didnt change...they just renamed it to council tax | |||
"The Spanish state, the PP government, would not allow them to hold a legal referendum. Yes, the referendum was illegal, but that is what they were elected to do. The majority in the Catalan parliament was there with a mandate to hold a referendum. The simple solution would be for the state allow a legal referendum but they are two stubborn and afraid of democracy to allow that to happen No, the constitution prohibits it. The constitution can be changed... and has been changed when it suits the national government " Yes, it can, it's a living document. So that's what they should do. Change the constitution, then hold the referendum | |||
| |||
"Spanish governments since Franco have followed a flawed constitution, yet many here are content to quote illegality, whereas democratic principles trump laws, where the latter are unjust and in need of reform. The point about Rosa Parks, by the way, is perfectly valid, in as much as the same principle applies: without unjust laws being challenged and exposed, reform never happens. None of the rights which we enjoy and often take for granted, would have been offered without the actions of those who are prepared to challenge the status quo. The Spanish political establishment is little more than a continuity wing of its militaristic predecessor. There are significant deficiencies in Spain's claim to democratic credentials. Its legal system is flawed, property rights are dubious, civic corruption is unacceptably high, it has a paramilitary police force which is prepared to attack innocent citizens and interfere with the democratic process. Moreover, any so-called democracy which is prepared to jail political opponents and issue arrest warrants, with extradition requests no less, on the basis of sedition and rebellion....sounds like fascism to me. A central government which continues Franco's policy of denying the democratic aspirations of the previously independent Catalans is not only anti-democratic but also morally bankrupt. The refusal of the EU to censure Rajoy for his repressive actions is also most telling. These people, like some on here, just love the big state and detest any movement towards devolving power closer to the people. When pro-Madrid demonstrators call for the imprisonment of politicians, make fascist salutes and afterwards share drinks and jokes with the paramilitary police thugs....if it looks, moves and smells like a fascist, there is a good chance that we are looking at fascism. Like the Scots' attitude to the wee whorehouse on the Thames, the Catalans look at the corrupt and abusive nature of the Palace of Moncloa and decide: we deserve better. Good luck to Catalonia. You last sentence simply destroyed any credibility with your post....just another whinging nat ? "Best and most honest post on here couldnt have out it better and just blank the clown with the whinging nat comment just another childish comment from him | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy They would arrest Jimmy Kramkie i f she did the same
There is that SNP bad shite again
God some of you people show your pure hatred for an elected party in Scotland eh lol
Didnt even have to mention SNP let that be noted to those that try and tell me all i talk about is Scotland and SNP i didnt bring it up
So is that what you call democracy jailing people so they dont run in the elections in Dec ?
I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct....if he thought he was right he wouldn't had legged it off to Belgium
Ah right thats is very interesting. So my question to you then is would you have send Rosa Parks to jail as segregation on buses was illegal back then ?
Theres a huge difference to what she was trying to achieve...is that so difficult to understand
Good way of shitting out of answering a question lol
You said and i quote ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
So am asking you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
And im saying there a huge difference...
3rd time you would you have been happy to see Rosa Parks in jail for doing something deemed illegal at that point ?
You the one that said this and i quote again ''I call jailing people that engage in illegal activities correct''
If you crap yourself this time from answering i will take that as you would have been happy to see Rosa Parks go to jail for doing something that was deemed illegal at that time.
And i'll quote again what she was doing was totally different....would you call the UK government wrong in the 70s and 80s with the IRA "The uk goverment were completely wrong as they coluded and funded ulster terrorists groups to kill unarmed and innocent ppl and their shout to (murder)policy just made them as bad as both irish terrorist groups ,so yes they were wrong | |||
"Looks like Puidgemont and his pals could be returning to Spain in handcuffs. How must ordinary Catalan Nationalists be feeling now? Promised so much and delivered nothing. Maybe they should ask the SNP supporters on here...as they promised everything and delivered nothing as well
SNP politicians have been tweeting non stop about supporting the Catalans indy claims and yet they refuse to recognise Catalonia as an independent nation. It's been pretty damn funny to watch and has left many of the rabble baffled "How can anyone recognise something that hasnt happened ? Hmmm think youve made a booboo lol with your snp bad lol | |||
| |||
"Easy to say that sitting in Cambridge. But you obviously haven't delved into the subject matter of your post too far. Nine of the Catalan 'leaders' are already in jail, facing charges of rebellion which carries a 30 year jail term. Rebellion under Spanish law is the use of violence to subvert the state, but in this case, as you might have seen from Cambridge, the only violence has come from Spanish police during the 'referendum'. If you were former president Carles Puigdemont, would you return to a country which is obviously setting out not to give you a fair trial and to jail you for the rest of your life for simply carrying out your election manifesto? And we are taking about a PP government which has been accused by the courts of being institutionally corrupt, by running a slush fund which 'donors' pay into so they can unfairly secure lucrative public contracts and then have the cash handed out to the party top brass. The PP government admonish the Catalan government for not obeying the law, when they themselves are the most corrupt party in Europe. And don't forget, the Catalans are being jailed because they want to vote... but some people don't like democracy ...." Spot on Puigdemont would not receive a fair trial here and with 5 previous Catalan presidents forced into exile and one tortured and executed - let's just say Spains treatment of Catalan leaders isn't one to be proud of | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? "No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell. | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell. "No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service. You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. | |||
"Spanish governments since Franco have followed a flawed constitution, yet many here are content to quote illegality, whereas democratic principles trump laws, where the latter are unjust and in need of reform. The point about Rosa Parks, by the way, is perfectly valid, in as much as the same principle applies: without unjust laws being challenged and exposed, reform never happens. None of the rights which we enjoy and often take for granted, would have been offered without the actions of those who are prepared to challenge the status quo. The Spanish political establishment is little more than a continuity wing of its militaristic predecessor. There are significant deficiencies in Spain's claim to democratic credentials. Its legal system is flawed, property rights are dubious, civic corruption is unacceptably high, it has a paramilitary police force which is prepared to attack innocent citizens and interfere with the democratic process. Moreover, any so-called democracy which is prepared to jail political opponents and issue arrest warrants, with extradition requests no less, on the basis of sedition and rebellion....sounds like fascism to me. A central government which continues Franco's policy of denying the democratic aspirations of the previously independent Catalans is not only anti-democratic but also morally bankrupt. The refusal of the EU to censure Rajoy for his repressive actions is also most telling. These people, like some on here, just love the big state and detest any movement towards devolving power closer to the people. When pro-Madrid demonstrators call for the imprisonment of politicians, make fascist salutes and afterwards share drinks and jokes with the paramilitary police thugs....if it looks, moves and smells like a fascist, there is a good chance that we are looking at fascism. Like the Scots' attitude to the wee whorehouse on the Thames, the Catalans look at the corrupt and abusive nature of the Palace of Moncloa and decide: we deserve better. Good luck to Catalonia. You last sentence simply destroyed any credibility with your post....just another whinging nat ?
Best and most honest post on here couldnt have out it better and just blank the clown with the whinging nat comment just another childish comment from him "Another Nat getting upset at losing a democratic vote? | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal."Thomas Jefferson disagrees. | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. Thomas Jefferson disagrees. "Were taxes collected under his presidency? Do you think that a smiley face makes you look any less daft? | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell. "I bet if someone broke in your home and stole all your belongs...you would want the law to deal with them... | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. Thomas Jefferson disagrees.
Were taxes collected under his presidency? Do you think that a smiley face makes you look any less daft?"Can you be any more authoritarian in your views. | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. Thomas Jefferson disagrees.
Were taxes collected under his presidency? Do you think that a smiley face makes you look any less daft? Can you be any more authoritarian in your views. "Right, so Jefferson did believe in taxation, and using those taxes to provide services, having politicians elected to write laws, and having a judiciary to enforce those laws. Like I said, the rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, it's not authoritarian. | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. Thomas Jefferson disagrees.
Were taxes collected under his presidency? Do you think that a smiley face makes you look any less daft? Can you be any more authoritarian in your views.
Right, so Jefferson did believe in taxation, and using those taxes to provide services, having politicians elected to write laws, and having a judiciary to enforce those laws.
Like I said, the rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, it's not authoritarian. "The catalan referedum was illegal yet millions of people attempted to take part thus breaking the law.When the population agrees with the laws of state they comply when they are in disagreement they break the law and rightly so Laws require consensus. | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. Thomas Jefferson disagrees.
Were taxes collected under his presidency? Do you think that a smiley face makes you look any less daft? Can you be any more authoritarian in your views.
Right, so Jefferson did believe in taxation, and using those taxes to provide services, having politicians elected to write laws, and having a judiciary to enforce those laws.
Like I said, the rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, it's not authoritarian.
The catalan referedum was illegal yet millions of people attempted to take part thus breaking the law.When the population agrees with the laws of state they comply when they are in disagreement they break the law and rightly so
Laws require consensus.
"If there was a consensus to change them, they will be changed. Until then, if you break the law, you face the consequences. | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. Thomas Jefferson disagrees.
Were taxes collected under his presidency? Do you think that a smiley face makes you look any less daft? Can you be any more authoritarian in your views.
Right, so Jefferson did believe in taxation, and using those taxes to provide services, having politicians elected to write laws, and having a judiciary to enforce those laws.
Like I said, the rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, it's not authoritarian.
The catalan referedum was illegal yet millions of people attempted to take part thus breaking the law.When the population agrees with the laws of state they comply when they are in disagreement they break the law and rightly so
Laws require consensus.
If there was a consensus to change them, they will be changed. Until then, if you break the law, you face the consequences. "Of course and this is why unjust laws continue to do harm.There are many whos desire is strong for others to face the consequences. | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. Thomas Jefferson disagrees.
Were taxes collected under his presidency? Do you think that a smiley face makes you look any less daft? Can you be any more authoritarian in your views.
Right, so Jefferson did believe in taxation, and using those taxes to provide services, having politicians elected to write laws, and having a judiciary to enforce those laws.
Like I said, the rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, it's not authoritarian.
The catalan referedum was illegal yet millions of people attempted to take part thus breaking the law.When the population agrees with the laws of state they comply when they are in disagreement they break the law and rightly so
Laws require consensus.
If there was a consensus to change them, they will be changed. Until then, if you break the law, you face the consequences.
Of course and this is why unjust laws continue to do harm.There are many whos desire is strong for others to face the consequences. "What is unjust about requiring a 2/3 majority for constitutional change? | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. Thomas Jefferson disagrees.
Were taxes collected under his presidency? Do you think that a smiley face makes you look any less daft? Can you be any more authoritarian in your views.
Right, so Jefferson did believe in taxation, and using those taxes to provide services, having politicians elected to write laws, and having a judiciary to enforce those laws.
Like I said, the rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, it's not authoritarian.
The catalan referedum was illegal yet millions of people attempted to take part thus breaking the law.When the population agrees with the laws of state they comply when they are in disagreement they break the law and rightly so
Laws require consensus.
If there was a consensus to change them, they will be changed. Until then, if you break the law, you face the consequences.
Of course and this is why unjust laws continue to do harm.There are many whos desire is strong for others to face the consequences.
What is unjust about requiring a 2/3 majority for constitutional change?"51% is a majority. For some.More than half is 51% mathematically. | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. Thomas Jefferson disagrees.
Were taxes collected under his presidency? Do you think that a smiley face makes you look any less daft? Can you be any more authoritarian in your views.
Right, so Jefferson did believe in taxation, and using those taxes to provide services, having politicians elected to write laws, and having a judiciary to enforce those laws.
Like I said, the rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, it's not authoritarian.
The catalan referedum was illegal yet millions of people attempted to take part thus breaking the law.When the population agrees with the laws of state they comply when they are in disagreement they break the law and rightly so
Laws require consensus.
If there was a consensus to change them, they will be changed. Until then, if you break the law, you face the consequences.
Of course and this is why unjust laws continue to do harm.There are many whos desire is strong for others to face the consequences.
What is unjust about requiring a 2/3 majority for constitutional change? 51% is a majority. For some.More than half is 51% mathematically."So do you believe that Canada, Denmark, the US, South Korea, Japan, India etc. Are all unjust for requiring super majorities? | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. Thomas Jefferson disagrees.
Were taxes collected under his presidency? Do you think that a smiley face makes you look any less daft? Can you be any more authoritarian in your views.
Right, so Jefferson did believe in taxation, and using those taxes to provide services, having politicians elected to write laws, and having a judiciary to enforce those laws.
Like I said, the rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, it's not authoritarian.
The catalan referedum was illegal yet millions of people attempted to take part thus breaking the law.When the population agrees with the laws of state they comply when they are in disagreement they break the law and rightly so
Laws require consensus.
If there was a consensus to change them, they will be changed. Until then, if you break the law, you face the consequences.
Of course and this is why unjust laws continue to do harm.There are many whos desire is strong for others to face the consequences.
What is unjust about requiring a 2/3 majority for constitutional change? 51% is a majority. For some.More than half is 51% mathematically.
So do you believe that Canada, Denmark, the US, South Korea, Japan, India etc. Are all unjust for requiring super majorities? "Its up to those people within to be in agreement on what is just or unjust.The catalans voted regardless of legality.Therfore they were in disagreement with the state and its laws. | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. Thomas Jefferson disagrees.
Were taxes collected under his presidency? Do you think that a smiley face makes you look any less daft? Can you be any more authoritarian in your views.
Right, so Jefferson did believe in taxation, and using those taxes to provide services, having politicians elected to write laws, and having a judiciary to enforce those laws.
Like I said, the rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, it's not authoritarian.
The catalan referedum was illegal yet millions of people attempted to take part thus breaking the law.When the population agrees with the laws of state they comply when they are in disagreement they break the law and rightly so
Laws require consensus.
If there was a consensus to change them, they will be changed. Until then, if you break the law, you face the consequences.
Of course and this is why unjust laws continue to do harm.There are many whos desire is strong for others to face the consequences.
What is unjust about requiring a 2/3 majority for constitutional change? 51% is a majority. For some.More than half is 51% mathematically.
So do you believe that Canada, Denmark, the US, South Korea, Japan, India etc. Are all unjust for requiring super majorities? Its up to those people within to be in agreement on what is just or unjust.The catalans voted regardless of legality.Therfore they were in disagreement with the state and its laws."Some people voted, but more than 50% of people in Catalonia didn't. How can you not answer the question about the other countries who require a super majority, because it's for them to decide, yet you are deciding whats just or unjust for the Catalans when you are not catalan? | |||
"God people really need to wake the fuck up lol Stop being mugs Its clear what they are doing. They are arresting Catalan ministers so they can't stand in election. Spain a sham democracy" Spain is upholding Spanish Law . .,Their constitution does not allow a referendum to take place UNLESS that referendum is for the Whole Spanish Nation. The Catalan autonomous government acted illegally . . then made certain their fate by announcing independence. Of course the Spanish Government is gonna prosecute. What's your argument? | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. Thomas Jefferson disagrees.
Were taxes collected under his presidency? Do you think that a smiley face makes you look any less daft? Can you be any more authoritarian in your views.
Right, so Jefferson did believe in taxation, and using those taxes to provide services, having politicians elected to write laws, and having a judiciary to enforce those laws.
Like I said, the rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, it's not authoritarian.
The catalan referedum was illegal yet millions of people attempted to take part thus breaking the law.When the population agrees with the laws of state they comply when they are in disagreement they break the law and rightly so
Laws require consensus.
If there was a consensus to change them, they will be changed. Until then, if you break the law, you face the consequences.
Of course and this is why unjust laws continue to do harm.There are many whos desire is strong for others to face the consequences.
What is unjust about requiring a 2/3 majority for constitutional change? 51% is a majority. For some.More than half is 51% mathematically.
So do you believe that Canada, Denmark, the US, South Korea, Japan, India etc. Are all unjust for requiring super majorities? Its up to those people within to be in agreement on what is just or unjust.The catalans voted regardless of legality.Therfore they were in disagreement with the state and its laws.
Some people voted, but more than 50% of people in Catalonia didn't.
How can you not answer the question about the other countries who require a super majority, because it's for them to decide, yet you are deciding whats just or unjust for the Catalans when you are not catalan?"Me..lol ive decided nothing. You been on the sauce. I did state its up to to the catalans to decide whats just. | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. Thomas Jefferson disagrees.
Were taxes collected under his presidency? Do you think that a smiley face makes you look any less daft? Can you be any more authoritarian in your views.
Right, so Jefferson did believe in taxation, and using those taxes to provide services, having politicians elected to write laws, and having a judiciary to enforce those laws.
Like I said, the rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, it's not authoritarian.
The catalan referedum was illegal yet millions of people attempted to take part thus breaking the law.When the population agrees with the laws of state they comply when they are in disagreement they break the law and rightly so
Laws require consensus.
If there was a consensus to change them, they will be changed. Until then, if you break the law, you face the consequences.
Of course and this is why unjust laws continue to do harm.There are many whos desire is strong for others to face the consequences.
What is unjust about requiring a 2/3 majority for constitutional change? 51% is a majority. For some.More than half is 51% mathematically.
So do you believe that Canada, Denmark, the US, South Korea, Japan, India etc. Are all unjust for requiring super majorities? Its up to those people within to be in agreement on what is just or unjust.The catalans voted regardless of legality.Therfore they were in disagreement with the state and its laws.
Some people voted, but more than 50% of people in Catalonia didn't.
How can you not answer the question about the other countries who require a super majority, because it's for them to decide, yet you are deciding whats just or unjust for the Catalans when you are not catalan? Me..lol ive decided nothing. You been on the sauce.
I did state its up to to the catalans to decide whats just."You described it as unjust.  | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. Thomas Jefferson disagrees.
Were taxes collected under his presidency? Do you think that a smiley face makes you look any less daft? Can you be any more authoritarian in your views.
Right, so Jefferson did believe in taxation, and using those taxes to provide services, having politicians elected to write laws, and having a judiciary to enforce those laws.
Like I said, the rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, it's not authoritarian.
The catalan referedum was illegal yet millions of people attempted to take part thus breaking the law.When the population agrees with the laws of state they comply when they are in disagreement they break the law and rightly so
Laws require consensus.
If there was a consensus to change them, they will be changed. Until then, if you break the law, you face the consequences.
Of course and this is why unjust laws continue to do harm.There are many whos desire is strong for others to face the consequences.
What is unjust about requiring a 2/3 majority for constitutional change? 51% is a majority. For some.More than half is 51% mathematically.
So do you believe that Canada, Denmark, the US, South Korea, Japan, India etc. Are all unjust for requiring super majorities? Its up to those people within to be in agreement on what is just or unjust.The catalans voted regardless of legality.Therfore they were in disagreement with the state and its laws.
Some people voted, but more than 50% of people in Catalonia didn't.
How can you not answer the question about the other countries who require a super majority, because it's for them to decide, yet you are deciding whats just or unjust for the Catalans when you are not catalan? Me..lol ive decided nothing. You been on the sauce.
I did state its up to to the catalans to decide whats just.
You described it as unjust. "Its up to the catalans to define it just or unjust no you or i . I'm off to watch fireworks with the kids.Enjoy your evening | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes?
Those who refused to pay the poll tax disobeyed the law.The law changed.The laws on drugs need changing.
But if I don't pay my taxes, what happens? I mean why should I pay for social services, I don't need them. Why should I pay for a school in Liverpool, or a hospital in Reading? I don't live there, fuck em, right?
You completely ignored firearms, should I be allowed 20, semi-auto 5.56mm rifles with bump stocks? You also ignored driving, should I be allowed to drink and drive around schools at 60 mph?
If I want grow 1500 cannabis plants, is that OK? How about importing 20kg of heroin? Perfectly fine?
Should I pay my TV licence? How about even bothering to get a driver's licence? I think forcing me to have car insurance imposes on my personal liberty, so no one should have to bother with that right?
Do you see any flaws in abandoning the rule of law yet? No i see the flaws in absolutism its the road to hell.
No? Let's just take one of those examples, taxes. You honestly see no problem with a society that pays no tax? No education system, no road network, no police, no health care, no military, no refuse collection, no social care, no building regulations, no politicians - so no laws, no fire service.
You are suggesting that that would be better for society than a system where we democratically elect a government to write laws that we all follow? No bob, that wouldn't be better, it would be cruel and painful and brutal. Thomas Jefferson disagrees.
Were taxes collected under his presidency? Do you think that a smiley face makes you look any less daft? Can you be any more authoritarian in your views.
Right, so Jefferson did believe in taxation, and using those taxes to provide services, having politicians elected to write laws, and having a judiciary to enforce those laws.
Like I said, the rule of law is a cornerstone of democracy, it's not authoritarian.
The catalan referedum was illegal yet millions of people attempted to take part thus breaking the law.When the population agrees with the laws of state they comply when they are in disagreement they break the law and rightly so
Laws require consensus.
If there was a consensus to change them, they will be changed. Until then, if you break the law, you face the consequences.
Of course and this is why unjust laws continue to do harm.There are many whos desire is strong for others to face the consequences.
What is unjust about requiring a 2/3 majority for constitutional change? 51% is a majority. For some.More than half is 51% mathematically.
So do you believe that Canada, Denmark, the US, South Korea, Japan, India etc. Are all unjust for requiring super majorities? Its up to those people within to be in agreement on what is just or unjust.The catalans voted regardless of legality.Therfore they were in disagreement with the state and its laws.
Some people voted, but more than 50% of people in Catalonia didn't.
How can you not answer the question about the other countries who require a super majority, because it's for them to decide, yet you are deciding whats just or unjust for the Catalans when you are not catalan? Me..lol ive decided nothing. You been on the sauce.
I did state its up to to the catalans to decide whats just.
You described it as unjust. Its up to the catalans to define it just or unjust no you or i . I'm off to watch fireworks with the kids.Enjoy your evening "So what about the Catalan law that states in order to hold an independence referendum, they require a 2/3 majority? The Catalan people wrote that for themselves. Surely they can't find that unjust if they wrote it. | |||
"13 rubber dingies
Tens of billions of pounds worth of ships! "Jobs and full order books until 2030 ...don’t forget! | |||
"What is a civilised society.? Was the US civilised in the 60s are they now?If so why the BLM movement. Does the spanish police brutality count as civilised if its within the law. This measure of being civilised is nonsense and baseless and only defined by those in power. Bob, you either believe in the rule of law, or you don't. I do, do you? To simple.Laws are there to be changed and broken and also upheld. The law should be disregarded when the law is unjust .You on the other hand are an absolutist.Who says the law must be obeyed. And who gets to decide if a law is unjust? You Bob? Thats easy, those in power being unjust usually decide.The only way to take that power is to ignore their rules.
So ignore any law when you don't like it, is that what you are proposing? You can disobey laws on moral grounds If your liberty is restricted or your individual freedom .
Like my freedom to take drugs? Own firearms? Drive as fast as I want? Not pay my taxes? "Ask Anarchist Bob....I’m sure he would be ok with that. | |||
 | |||
