Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

TSR Tory Question Time

Announcements Posted on
We're up for a Webby! Vote TSR to help us win. 10-04-2014
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Well don't bother spelling the ****ing country name in French then if you are going to ****ing half-arse it. I (and many French people) make a ****ing effort with English, why don't you do it for other languages?
    Je suis desole. Honnetement. :rolleyes:

    Oh but of course however I don't recognise that fallacy... as otherwise by definition the Queen of England is a dictator.
    Yes, because the Queen has absolute power. Oh, wait, there was thing called the Glorious Revolution. Did no-one tell you?

    Oh noes, 25% are controlled by the army and wtf there was just an election....
    You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that there was a General Election. There was not. There was a by-election, for 45 seats in the 440 strong Burmese House of Representatives. Of the rest, 110 are appointed by the junta, and 212 are members of the junta's civilian puppet party, meaning 322 out of those 440 Representatives are controlled, either directly or indirectly, by the junta. Yes. What a "democracy" that is...

    I honestly don't care about what human rights nut jobs say, what are human rights anyway? man-made rights, that is what they are.
    I'm glad to know the official Conservative stance on humans rights. That said, I was not talking about human rights, simply pointing out that many groups, including the current RL Government and the Conservative Foreign Minister William Hague, continue to call Burma Burma in defiance of the Junta.

    Rakas21, do you support tehfrance's statement on human rights?

    All of the above is not representative of the Conservative party as a whole... also I like how you completely ignore the fact that most of the countries you listed do not have dictatorships.
    If you go over my post a little more carefully, you'll see I provided a link providing the freedom status of all the countries in the world. The countries I listed all have dictatorships (or at least an oligarchy of some sort).

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Not quite so extreme in that we don't just have a list we chuck a dart at.

    No, we look at countries on a case by case basis and examine whether we could utilise all military aspects (navy, air force, army), location to powers and whether they have committed an act of genocide.
    If you really, really want me to, Rakas, I can provide a list of all the countries in the world which have engaged in genocide that we could beat in a war. I can guarantee you it is quite a long list. Do you really propose to invade every member?

    We are committed to using our influence on the UNSC for good.
    Does that extend to unilaterally invading all of the countries involved in genocide we could beat in a war? if not, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Please, do make your mind up.
    • 27 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I already answered that question by stating 'case by case' basis, of course we do not have the resources nor man power to go into every country.

    They are man made, that is true.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    <Snip>
    **** your crap French. Get the accents right or don't bother.

    She can have absolute power if she wished.

    Who gives a crap? I sure don't... it is a country I don't care about, I have zero use for it.

    WTF did I say? all of what I have said is my view. I also don't care about what Hague says.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Je suis desole. Honnetement. :rolleyes:



    Yes, because the Queen has absolute power. Oh, wait, there was thing called the Glorious Revolution. Did no-one tell you?



    You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that there was a General Election. There was not. There was a by-election, for 45 seats in the 440 strong Burmese House of Representatives. Of the rest, 110 are appointed by the junta, and 212 are members of the junta's civilian puppet party, meaning 322 out of those 440 Representatives are controlled, either directly or indirectly, by the junta. Yes. What a "democracy" that is...



    I'm glad to know the official Conservative stance on humans rights. That said, I was not talking about human rights, simply pointing out that many groups, including the current RL Government and the Conservative Foreign Minister William Hague, continue to call Burma Burma in defiance of the Junta.

    Rakas21, do you support tehfrance's statement on human rights?



    If you go over my post a little more carefully, you'll see I provided a link providing the freedom status of all the countries in the world. The countries I listed all have dictatorships (or at least an oligarchy of some sort).



    If you really, really want me to, Rakas, I can provide a list of all the countries in the world which have engaged in genocide that we could beat in a war. I can guarantee you it is quite a long list. Do you really propose to invade every member?



    Does that extend to unilaterally invading all of the countries involved in genocide we could beat in a war? if not, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Please, do make your mind up.
    The Queen is an absolute monarch. We have no constitution, therefore there is no "Constitutional Monarchy" as assumed by most. The Queen has the power to overturn any decision of parliament, and ultimately is the ruler of this country. She simply chooses not to use these powers, for whatever reasons you wish to put it down to.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moleman1996)
    The Queen is an absolute monarch. We have no constitution, therefore there is no "Constitutional Monarchy" as assumed by most. The Queen has the power to overturn any decision of parliament, and ultimately is the ruler of this country. She simply chooses not to use these powers, for whatever reasons you wish to put it down to.
    Actually we do have a constitution, it's just uncodified. And Parliament is sovereign, not the monarch - both theoretically and in practice.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Actually we do have a constitution, it's just uncodified. And Parliament is sovereign, not the monarch - both theoretically and in practice.
    But it doesn't bind her, she can be well within her powers and overrule it. Parliament can technically have the queen removed from office, but they do not have the power to remove the monarchy.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moleman1996)
    But it doesn't bind her, she can be well within her powers and overrule it. Parliament can technically have the queen removed from office, but they do not have the power to remove the monarchy.
    The Queen would not exist if she or her family became even slightly political.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I already answered that question by stating 'case by case' basis, of course we do not have the resources nor man power to go into every country.
    Ah, so you simply plan to do them one by one! In that case, which is first? Probably Syria, I'm guessing, but where after that? What order are you going to invade the world's dictatorships in?

    They are man made, that is true.
    And so what is your position on a British Bill of Rights?

    (Original post by tehFrance)
    She can have absolute power if she wished.
    "The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty mean neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament."

    Who gives a crap? I sure don't... it is a country I don't care about, I have zero use for it.
    That's quite a contradiction with Rakas21! Mere moments ago, the Conservative line was interventionism to save countries from acts of genocide. But now, you don't care?

    (Original post by Moleman1996)
    But it doesn't bind her, she can be well within her powers and overrule it. Parliament can technically have the queen removed from office, but they do not have the power to remove the monarchy.
    Whilst this is not really relevant to the argument I was making earlier, which was pointing out that the Conservative policy to consider invading every defeatable dictatorship on earth, even if not in order, was mad, this is a somewhat interesting side conversation. I think the best the Queen can do is gridlock - she could in theory refuse Royal Assent on any legislation aimed at removing her, but she is bound by any currently passed acts of Parliament, and while she could dissolve Parliament, she must abide by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, allowing for elections. A Mexican stand-off, if you like.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    "The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty mean neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament."

    That's quite a contradiction with Rakas21! Mere moments ago, the Conservative line was interventionism to save countries from acts of genocide. But now, you don't care?
    Right... you seem to be mistaking me for someone that cares about ol' Queenie.

    Again that was my personal opinion, what is so hard to understand about that? anyway if people want to intervene to stop acts of genocide and a good case can be made for it, sure lets do it but I don't want wars that are a financial black hole... we need to make money not flush it down the toilet.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Right... you seem to be mistaking me for someone that cares about ol' Queenie.
    I see. It's good to know that the TSR Conservatives have a republican Frenchmen in their midst. Burke would be spinning in his grave!

    Again that was my personal opinion, what is so hard to understand about that? anyway if people want to intervene to stop acts of genocide and a good case can be made for it, sure lets do it but I don't want wars that are a financial black hole... we need to make money not flush it down the toilet.
    Oh, I absolutely agree! Which is why I'm pressuring Rakas21 to make a good case, because he hasn't done so yet. So far, his criteria are "genocide must have occurred, we must be able to beat them in a fight, and we only invade one at a time". This would see us invade half the world by the time we were done.

    Still, it's good to know you disagree with your leader.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Ah, so you simply plan to do them one by one! In that case, which is first? Probably Syria, I'm guessing, but where after that? What order are you going to invade the world's dictatorships in?



    And so what is your position on a British Bill of Rights?



    "The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty mean neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament."



    That's quite a contradiction with Rakas21! Mere moments ago, the Conservative line was interventionism to save countries from acts of genocide. But now, you don't care?



    Whilst this is not really relevant to the argument I was making earlier, which was pointing out that the Conservative policy to consider invading every defeatable dictatorship on earth, even if not in order, was mad, this is a somewhat interesting side conversation. I think the best the Queen can do is gridlock - she could in theory refuse Royal Assent on any legislation aimed at removing her, but she is bound by any currently passed acts of Parliament, and while she could dissolve Parliament, she must abide by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, allowing for elections. A Mexican stand-off, if you like.
    Personally I don't think we should impose western style democracy on everyone. There's a book somewhere, can't remember what its called, and I haven't read it but just a review of it, that suggests that democracy flourishes where it does based on climate, culture and other stuff, and that in other places it simply cannot work, and that we are halting progress by trying to make it. Not the party opinion necessarily but whilst human rights abuses are not good, I don't think democracy is always the answer.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    I see. It's good to know that the TSR Conservatives have a republican Frenchmen in their midst. Burke would be spinning in his grave!

    Still, it's good to know you disagree with your leader.
    Who says I am republican? while I used to be, tbh I actually have gotten used to the idea of having Queen or King, I just don't care about them or the rest of the royal family.

    C'est la vie...
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moleman1996)
    Personally I don't think we should impose western style democracy on everyone. There's a book somewhere, can't remember what its called, and I haven't read it but just a review of it, that suggests that democracy flourishes where it does based on climate, culture and other stuff, and that in other places it simply cannot work, and that we are halting progress by trying to make it. Not the party opinion necessarily but whilst human rights abuses are not good, I don't think democracy is always the answer.
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    C'est la vie...
    I see! So not only is there no party line on Europe, there's no party line on foreign affairs, either. I mean, I don't even disagree with you, I just find it interesting that yourself, Rakas21, and tehfrance all have completely conflicting views on foreign policy when I was assured that was one of the few things the Tory Party had a united line on!
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    I see! So not only is there no party line on Europe, there's no party line on foreign affairs, either. I mean, I don't even disagree with you, I just find it interesting that yourself, Rakas21, and tehfrance all have completely conflicting views on foreign policy when I was assured that was one of the few things the Tory Party had a united line on!
    Economically we are united... however Socially (like with the RL Tories and hell even RL Labour has conflicting views) there is the odd divide.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The odd divide! You can't even agree on which country you're invading next!
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    The odd divide! You can't even agree on which country you're invading next!
    Why do you care about who we invade? I personally think that you want to invade a country but are trying to make it look like it is us with these stupid questions.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Why do you care about who we invade?
    You are the future Opposition. It is my job to ensure that people are aware of how poorly thought through your policies are. More than that, I represent the people of TSR, and I rather do think they care about who the Tories want to invade.

    I personally think that you want to invade a country but are trying to make it look like it is us with these stupid questions.
    Not in the slightest. If your best retort is insinuating somehow I want to invade somewhere without any proof behind it, I rather think you're aware your argument is incoherent.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    You are the future Opposition.
    :rofl: are you telling me that a party has enough faith in you to make you government again? if that is true, we are doomed.
    • 27 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Ah, so you simply plan to do them one by one! In that case, which is first? Probably Syria, I'm guessing, but where after that? What order are you going to invade the world's dictatorships in?

    And so what is your position on a British Bill of Rights?

    "The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty mean neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament."

    T
    Honestly, i would support military action in Syria. What is the point in being on the select UNSC if you are never going to use your power, sanctions largely do not work. Going deeper it needs to have a coastline (for full utilisation of navy), not border a nuclear power and preferably have support from at least one other member of the UNSC (which i support the expansion of). In regards to financial black holes this is also a concern and is why i do not support long and drawn out wars, in "remove dictator, put in a democratic government, out" all in 1 term (think Iraq).

    On TSR it would be doable, in RL i am fine with the European one.

    We would like to announce that while party has no official position relating to this, we are considering the prospect of allowing the people to decide whether they wish to become a Republic via a referendum on the issue.
    • 27 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Economically we are united... however Socially (like with the RL Tories and hell even RL Labour has conflicting views) there is the odd divide.
    Indeed, and to those who consider this a weakness they are very wrong as this allows us to view a broad range of options on a particular matter.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: April 16, 2014
Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.