[James Hutchins]

Re: New Royal Baby Has a "Pump Handle".

My concern is, has anyone checked to see if it is a ginger? The last thing that wretched country needs is another soulless heir to the throne. Before anyone gets too attached to it (or spends the money on fitted clothes), it can be exchanged for a good one and no one will notice.

[Rev. Waynetta Kerr]

Re: New Royal Baby Has a "Pump Handle".

It would have been lovely to have our first queen that was actually a queen even though she had brothers. But God had other ideas.

One day, I'm sure our great country will have a queen that is also an out of the closet lesbian with a wife. And Jesus will join me in Heaven clapping his hands and rejoicing that we have moved closer to his obvious message of love and tolerance and everyone being treated fairly.

[Didymus Much]

Re: New Royal Baby Has a "Pump Handle".

...our great country will have a queen that is also an out of the closet lesbian with a wife. And Jesus will join me in Heaven clapping his hands and rejoicing that we have moved closer to his obvious message of love and tolerance and everyone being treated fairly.

Does your Bible look something like this?



How much of it is left?

[Johny Joe Hold]

Re: New Royal Baby Has a "Pump Handle".

One day, I'm sure our great country will have a queen that is also an out of the closet lesbian with a wife. And Jesus will join me in Heaven clapping his hands and rejoicing that we have moved closer to his obvious message of love and tolerance and everyone being treated fairly.

What your sinful country does not need is another Queen to run its economy into the ground. Add to it a lesbo Queen and the curtain will surely come down on England.

[Looney Jack]

Re: New Royal Baby Has a "Pump Handle".

Yes, and has DISMISSED PRIME MINISTERS did you miss that bit?

The "civil list" payments (I doubt you know what you're talking about just having read Peking Communist Review and other similar unreliable sources) are in return for INCOME derived from the Crown Estate. It is suggested that, owing to public misunderstanding of the arrangement, the Civil List should be abolished and their income returned to the Royal Family. The government however would be very seriously out-of-pocket in that event and therefore continue to butress lies, the lies you believe as fact. Joke central.

A show is a show is a show.

She does what she is told. She dismisses who she is told to dismiss and appoints who she is told to appoint. There are men in office who give her recommendations that she abides by. And as far as I am aware the royal family pays more in taxes than they receive. I don't believe the civil list allotments were ever a genuine topic in this discussion.

I'm not discussing this any farther because you folks are either unwilling or incapable of comprehending the English language. Disagree with me if you like, but essentially you are just ignoring my position and regurgitating the same tired rhetoric. We disagree. I'll leave it at that.

[Mistress Cookie]

Re: New Royal Baby Has a "Pump Handle".

She does what she is told. She dismisses who she is told to dismiss and appoints who she is told to appoint. There are men in office who give her recommendations that she abides by.

Weirdly, that all sounds...strangely familiar...

[Looney Jack]

Re: New Royal Baby Has a "Pump Handle".

It would have been lovely to have our first queen that was actually a queen even though she had brothers. But God had other ideas.

One day, I'm sure our great country will have a queen that is also an out of the closet lesbian with a wife. And Jesus will join me in Heaven clapping his hands and rejoicing that we have moved closer to his obvious message of love and tolerance and everyone being treated fairly.

I have always found it peculiar those people, whose very existence is cited in the Bible as abominable, who insist on lying to not only themselves, but everyone else, about the biblical god. The mythological war god Yahweh is neither a feminist nor is it depicted as tolerant of homosexuality.

If you need to invent a higher being to elevate your personal preferences to something more than just your personal preferences, why tread on someone else's religious dogma? Why not just make up your own god in name as you have made up your own god in principle? Why associate your newly conceived modernist god with the Bible's anciently conceived traditionalist god?

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: New Royal Baby Has a "Pump Handle".

I have always found it peculiar those people, whose very existence is cited in the Bible as abominable, who insist on lying to not only themselves, but everyone else, about the biblical god. The mythological war god Yahweh is neither a feminist nor is it depicted as tolerant of homosexuality.

If you need to invent a higher being to elevate your personal preferences to something more than just your personal preferences, why tread on someone else's religious dogma? Why not just make up your own god in name as you have made up your own god in principle? Why associate your newly conceived modernist god with the Bible's anciently conceived traditionalist god?

I'm not sure whether Miss Kerr believes in the persona? She probably imagines herself to be a sort of bubble, wafting in the breeze and bumping against wherever it blows her and she calls the bumping Love.

I suppose the breeze in her lexicon would be a person of the Trinity but I'm not sure which one, clearly in her world there are four of them and one of them is red.

[Johny Joe Hold]

Re: New Royal Baby Has a "Pump Handle".

A show is a show is a show.

She does what she is told. She dismisses who she is told to dismiss and appoints who she is told to appoint. There are men in office who give her recommendations that she abides by.

There you go, trying to blame men for England's troubles. The country's bungled management falls squarely on its Queen.

Mistress Cookie, one of our best judges of character, has raised her eyebrow about you. Her talent is spotting posters who are different than they make themselves appear to be.

You are presenting yourself as knowledgeable about the British system of governance. We have our doubts.

[Looney Jack]

Re: New Royal Baby Has a "Pump Handle".

There you go, trying to blame men for England's troubles. The country's bungled management falls squarely on its Queen.

Mistress Cookie, one of our best judges of character, has raised her eyebrow about you. Her talent is spotting posters who are different than they make themselves appear to be.

You are presenting yourself as knowledgeable about the British system of governance. We have our doubts.

I am not British nor have I ever claimed to be, if that's what you are hinting at. I don't have to be British to know that in the year 2013 there is no monarchs ruling the country.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: New Royal Baby Has a "Pump Handle".

And Jesus will join me in Heaven clapping his hands and rejoicing that we have moved closer to his obvious message of love and tolerance and everyone being treated fairly.

Dear, if you truly loved Jesus, you would know that "being treated fairly" means an eternity of unending, unfathomable torture in the Lake of Fire. Instead, Jesus decides to treat those who love Him mercifully (Romans 6:23).

[Johny Joe Hold]

Re: New Royal Baby Has a "Pump Handle".

I am not British nor have I ever claimed to be, if that's what you are hinting at. I don't have to be British to know that in the year 2013 there is no monarchs ruling the country.

To be honest, I'm beginning to think you are one of those liberals who reads the Bible and then says, "Well, it could mean this or it could mean that."
The Bible is clear and it simply means what it says.

In the case of British law, same thing. There is a King or a Queen. Those titles mean ruler. There has been a Queen for decades and the country has gone to hell in a hand basket. Study your history and you will agree with me.

[Deaner]

Re: New Royal Baby Has a "Pump Handle".

I have always found it peculiar those people, whose very existence is cited in the Bible as abominable, who insist on lying to not only themselves, but everyone else, about the biblical god. The mythological war god Yahweh is neither a feminist nor is it depicted as tolerant of homosexuality.

If you need to invent a higher being to elevate your personal preferences to something more than just your personal preferences, why tread on someone else's religious dogma? Why not just make up your own god in name as you have made up your own god in principle? Why associate your newly conceived modernist god with the Bible's anciently conceived traditionalist god?

Oh no; It is starting to yell. The queen is like a whore with a little black book who calls on her contacts to do her bidding. You are what we call in America a "goof".

Yes, we have had our problems, but until you start to believe in Jesus Christ of the United States instead of a wrinkly crone with a fishy, stinky crotch that not even the best doctors in the world can cure; your fate is sealed.

It's not that she has not tried to be a gentlewoman, but with her husband Prince Philip screwing anything that didn't have a penis (from the Philippines to the Artic) she may not stink the way she does.

[Pastor Ed Lowman]

Re: New Royal Baby Has a "Pump Handle".

I am not British nor have I ever claimed to be, if that's what you are hinting at. I don't have to be British to know that in the year 2013 there is no monarchs ruling the country.

You're a stubborn piece of ostrich dung, aren't you?

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: New Royal Baby Has a "Pump Handle".

I am not British nor have I ever claimed to be, if that's what you are hinting at. I don't have to be British to know that in the year 2013 there is no monarchs ruling the country.

I don't know what it's going to take here Jack - you've already been PWN'ed once. If you're still thinking that the aging old queen that looks like everyone's grandmother (except Michelle Obama's) and her imbecile son Prince Charles (that talks to plants) are just tourist attractions you need to read the following.

Most of this "divine right of kings" stuff was cooked up by the papist cathylicks in order to have the pope rule the planet (which is why we still don't trust the cathylicks here in the US). You do have to hand it to the British in dispensing with the papists and starting their own church (Church of England) which their silly queen still heads and was crowned in (and they still practice that silly eucharist wafer munching nonsense).

Queen Vetoed The Passing Of War Powers To Parliament, Whitehall Documents Reveal
Posted: 15/01/2013 11:15 GMT | Updated: 31/01/2013 00:01 GMT

Republicans have reacted with horror to the revelation that the Queen and the Prince of Wales exercise their power to veto legislation that is proposed by parliament, with the monarch even having blocked an attempt to hand MPs the power to declare war.

On Tuesday, the Guardian revealed that at least 39 bills had been subject to the monarchy's power to agree to or block new laws.

The information came to light after Downing Street lost a court battle with the paper to prevent publication of the internal Whitehall record.

Graham Smith, the chief executive of Republic, the campaign group which wants to get rid of an unelected head of state, said the royal veto was "a serious affront to our democracy".

"It is extraordinary that in this day and age our elected politicians have to ask the permission of the Queen and her eldest son before they can pass new laws," he said.

"With Prince Charles routinely interfering in politics we can now see that he has real leverage over ministers. It's no wonder they pay such close attention to his views."

"The palace's claims this is nothing more than a formality are unbelievable: why did the government fight tooth and nail to keep this information secret? It is time we had full disclosure on the extent of this royal power and how it has affected the laws we now all live under."

The Cabinet Office document shows that among the new laws that required the Queen's consent was the Civil Partnership Act 2004 as it contained a clause about the validity of the relationships "that would bind Her Majesty".

And the government was obliged to ask the Prince of Wales for his consent for the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997 as he owns the harbour of the Isles of Scilly through the Duchy of Cornwall.

The Queen also vetoed entirely a private member's Bill, the Military Actions Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill 1999, that would have transfered the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to Parliament

It is widely assumed that the royal prerogative, the authority to declare war, rests now with the prime minister rather than the Queen herself.

However, these documents raise questions about how much power the monarch still has over the elected government of the day.

Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert said the fact there had been a "fight to to keep this quiet" showed the significance of the Whitehall document.

"It's quite concerning there is wider influence, and secretive influence, of the monarchy in these things than had previously been revealed," he told The Huffington Post UK.

And he said he was particularly concerned about the revelation the Queen had fought to keep parliament from gaining the power to authorise, or block, military action.

"The power to go to war is an incredibly important thing," he said. "It's important to bring the country on side and to do things in a clear way and leave the choice up to parliament.

He added: "I think it's astonishing that the first vote on Afghanistan happened in this parliament, there wasn't one before that, that's absolutely astounding in what claims to be parliamentary democracy."

And Labour MP Paul Flynn told HuffPost that the revelations showed Britain was a "long way from having a full democracy".

And he said the Monarchy had "so many privileges" the idea they could "amend or frustrate legislation" was "not part of the deal".

Lib Dem Andrew George told The Guardian:"This is opening the eyes of those who believe the Queen only has a ceremonial role."

"At any stage this issue could come up and surprise us and we could find parliament is less powerful than we thought it was."

On Tuesday Cabinet Office minister Chloe Smith said the "signification" of the Queen's and the Prince of Wales's consent for certain Bills was "a parliamentary requirement" and noted that neither had refused to consent to any government Bill in the last 10 years.

In a parliamentary answer given to George, she said the government did not hold figures for how many bills have required royal consent over the last 10 years and to collect such data would "incur disproportionate cost as there are many bills in each session".

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "It is a long established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/15/queen-veto-war-powers_n_2477422.html