Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Queen of England Owns Everything

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 2:04:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
http://www.whoownstheworld.com...

"Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth's non ocean surface. She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. "

"Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres. million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres."

"Largest five personal landowners on Earth:

Queen Elizabeth II -------------------6,600 million acres
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia --------553 million acres
King Bhumibol of Thailand ------------126 million acres
King Mohammed IV of Morocco ------113 million acres
Sultan Quaboos of Oman --------------76 million acres"
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 2:07:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I contest she doesn't because she doesn't have any real force behind her claims. She doesn't even run the government of England so here ability to assert her claim to territory would be very difficult if crisis emerged
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 2:13:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 2:07:39 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
I contest she doesn't because she doesn't have any real force behind her claims. She doesn't even run the government of England so here ability to assert her claim to territory would be very difficult if crisis emerged

All her land is controled by her laws.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 2:15:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 2:13:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 2:07:39 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
I contest she doesn't because she doesn't have any real force behind her claims. She doesn't even run the government of England so here ability to assert her claim to territory would be very difficult if crisis emerged

All her land is controled by her laws.

No they are controlled by the laws of the parliament's of whatever country her land happens to reside in, and the militaries of those lands enforce the laws
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 2:25:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 2:15:25 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 2:13:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 2:07:39 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
I contest she doesn't because she doesn't have any real force behind her claims. She doesn't even run the government of England so here ability to assert her claim to territory would be very difficult if crisis emerged

All her land is controled by her laws.

No they are controlled by the laws of the parliament's of whatever country her land happens to reside in, and the militaries of those lands enforce the laws

Nvm, I read wrong. She still reigns over all her territories.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:01:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 2:25:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 2:15:25 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 2:13:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 2:07:39 PM, Strikeeagle84015 wrote:
I contest she doesn't because she doesn't have any real force behind her claims. She doesn't even run the government of England so here ability to assert her claim to territory would be very difficult if crisis emerged

All her land is controled by her laws.

No they are controlled by the laws of the parliament's of whatever country her land happens to reside in, and the militaries of those lands enforce the laws

Nvm, I read wrong. She still reigns over all her territories.

Maybe if by "reign" you mean "Epically fails at reigning"
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:05:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
She owns only her own possessions as everyone else.

Everything else is stolen for her by her cronies.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:07:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:05:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
She owns only her own possessions as everyone else.

Everything else is stolen for her by her cronies.

No. It isn't even that. No one stole, say, Canada for her. She just doesn't have it. There's a tradition of lying to say she owns it, but it doesn't actually mean anything.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:09:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:07:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:05:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
She owns only her own possessions as everyone else.

Everything else is stolen for her by her cronies.

No. It isn't even that. No one stole, say, Canada for her. She just doesn't have it. There's a tradition of lying to say she owns it, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

That too. I'm just saying any property she exercises control over besides her own possessions is theft.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:10:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:09:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:07:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:05:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
She owns only her own possessions as everyone else.

Everything else is stolen for her by her cronies.

No. It isn't even that. No one stole, say, Canada for her. She just doesn't have it. There's a tradition of lying to say she owns it, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

That too. I'm just saying any property she exercises control over without permission besides her own possessions is theft.

edit
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:11:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
She may as well own Santa Claus :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:13:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:11:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
She may as well own Santa Claus :P.

That reminds me of another interesting topic that I'll make a thread on.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:15:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:07:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:05:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
She owns only her own possessions as everyone else.

Everything else is stolen for her by her cronies.

No. It isn't even that. No one stole, say, Canada for her. She just doesn't have it. There's a tradition of lying to say she owns it, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

"Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns."

http://www.whoownstheworld.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:17:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:15:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:07:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:05:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
She owns only her own possessions as everyone else.

Everything else is stolen for her by her cronies.

No. It isn't even that. No one stole, say, Canada for her. She just doesn't have it. There's a tradition of lying to say she owns it, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

"Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns."

http://www.whoownstheworld.com...

That's an opinion.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:18:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:11:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
She may as well own Santa Claus :P.

And I would say the same thing about all the leaders of the world. They dont own anything. They just happen to have a bunch of worthless papers and coercion enforcing them.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:19:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:15:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:07:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:05:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
She owns only her own possessions as everyone else.

Everything else is stolen for her by her cronies.

No. It isn't even that. No one stole, say, Canada for her. She just doesn't have it. There's a tradition of lying to say she owns it, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

"Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns."

http://www.whoownstheworld.com...

The legislatures nod at it for the sake of tradition.

If she tries to enforce it, they say "ROFL, no. That's not a real law. Just like all these laws against blasphemy and whatnot on the books. It's just there to avoid the transaction costs of getting rid of them, but there's too much dust on it to be real."

I know I've read a case like that in the US on a blasphemy law, there's no doubt a similar precedent in Canada.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:26:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:17:16 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:15:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:07:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:05:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
She owns only her own possessions as everyone else.

Everything else is stolen for her by her cronies.

No. It isn't even that. No one stole, say, Canada for her. She just doesn't have it. There's a tradition of lying to say she owns it, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

"Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns."

http://www.whoownstheworld.com...

That's an opinion.

That's retarded. Either its a fact or a statement made based on false data. Either way, its not a matter of opinion.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:30:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:26:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:17:16 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:15:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:07:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:05:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
She owns only her own possessions as everyone else.

Everything else is stolen for her by her cronies.

No. It isn't even that. No one stole, say, Canada for her. She just doesn't have it. There's a tradition of lying to say she owns it, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

"Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns."

http://www.whoownstheworld.com...

That's an opinion.

That's retarded. Either its a fact or a statement made based on false data. Either way, its not a matter of opinion.

No, property is entirely a matter of opinion. Their definition of property seems to be "I'm more powerful than you and I say it's mine, so it's mine". My definition of property is "if I predominately use it, than it's mine. If I share predominant use, than I share ownership".
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:33:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
As Ragnar and others have said, Crown land =/= actual Crown land.

The Queen has no real say over it, the legislature and government does. It's only called "Crown land" because of the fact that the Crown is the traditional executive branch of the government. If you called it "government land," there'd be no difference between it and Crown land.

The same goes with calling the government in any case, such as in legal issues, "the Crown." It's not literally the Queen of England people are suing - it's the government, which by tradition follows the title of representing "the Crown." It's just the government, and any real ownership the Queen has rests in England only.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:35:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Monarchy should be abolished. Even in places like England where it doesn't really matter, tis such a statute the pointlessness of it all that need be done away with.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:40:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:35:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Monarchy should be abolished. Even in places like England where it doesn't really matter, tis such a statute the pointlessness of it all that need be done away with.

And do what - install a presidency which will also do nothing? Switching a ceremonial Queen for a ceremonial President, with probably even less powers at their disposal?

What people don't understand that is in countries like Canada, the costs of the monarchy are negligible. It serves its purpose with ease and makes it nice and quaint. 'Tis nice. Why change what ain't broken?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:43:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:40:32 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:35:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Monarchy should be abolished. Even in places like England where it doesn't really matter, tis such a statute the pointlessness of it all that need be done away with.

And do what - install a presidency which will also do nothing? Switching a ceremonial Queen for a ceremonial President, with probably even less powers at their disposal?

What people don't understand that is in countries like Canada, the costs of the monarchy are negligible. It serves its purpose with ease and makes it nice and quaint. 'Tis nice. Why change what ain't broken?

Purpose? What purpose? And actually a president with less powers would be nice.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:47:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:30:05 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:26:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:17:16 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:15:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:07:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:05:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
She owns only her own possessions as everyone else.

Everything else is stolen for her by her cronies.

No. It isn't even that. No one stole, say, Canada for her. She just doesn't have it. There's a tradition of lying to say she owns it, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

"Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns."

http://www.whoownstheworld.com...

That's an opinion.

That's retarded. Either its a fact or a statement made based on false data. Either way, its not a matter of opinion.

No, property is entirely a matter of opinion. Their definition of property seems to be "I'm more powerful than you and I say it's mine, so it's mine". My definition of property is "if I predominately use it, than it's mine. If I share predominant use, than I share ownership".

That's a separate issue and has nothing to do with the statement. I already stated that I don't believe world leaders own anything. But the statement simply said that "her holding is based the laws of the countries."

YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE LAWS FOR THAT STATEMENT TO BE A FACT.

I don't believe she owns anything either, but it doesn't chanfe the fact that counties have laws stating that.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 3:50:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:47:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:30:05 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:26:42 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:17:16 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:15:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:07:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:05:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
She owns only her own possessions as everyone else.

Everything else is stolen for her by her cronies.

No. It isn't even that. No one stole, say, Canada for her. She just doesn't have it. There's a tradition of lying to say she owns it, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

"Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns."

http://www.whoownstheworld.com...

That's an opinion.

That's retarded. Either its a fact or a statement made based on false data. Either way, its not a matter of opinion.

No, property is entirely a matter of opinion. Their definition of property seems to be "I'm more powerful than you and I say it's mine, so it's mine". My definition of property is "if I predominately use it, than it's mine. If I share predominant use, than I share ownership".

That's a separate issue and has nothing to do with the statement. I already stated that I don't believe world leaders own anything. But the statement simply said that "her holding is based the laws of the countries."

YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE LAWS FOR THAT STATEMENT TO BE A FACT.

I don't believe she owns anything either, but it doesn't chanfe the fact that counties have laws stating that.

Ok great.

"her land title is valid in all the countries she owns."

I stated that was only an opinion.

You said it was retarded.

You're are constantly contradicting yourself.

Just think a little more before you post.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 4:03:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:50:58 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:47:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 7/2/2010 3:30:05 PM, FREEDO wrote:

No, property is entirely a matter of opinion. Their definition of property seems to be "I'm more powerful than you and I say it's mine, so it's mine". My definition of property is "if I predominately use it, than it's mine. If I share predominant use, than I share ownership".

That's a separate issue and has nothing to do with the statement. I already stated that I don't believe world leaders own anything. But the statement simply said that "her holding is based the laws of the countries."

YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE LAWS FOR THAT STATEMENT TO BE A FACT.

I don't believe she owns anything either, but it doesn't chanfe the fact that counties have laws stating that.

Ok great.

"her land title is valid in all the countries she owns."

Valid based on the laws of the countries. That's not the part of the quote I was refering to. That's selective quoting on your part.

I stated that was only an opinion.

You said it was retarded.

The quote is still a fact. Its not a matter of opinion as you claimed.

You're are constantly contradicting yourself.

Show me where I contradicted.

My point was that the Queen legally owns her land, but you don't have to actually agree with the laws or even that laws should exist. That's besides the fact and there is no contradiction.

Just think a little more before you post.

You are musunderstanding the quote.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 4:23:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 3:43:48 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Purpose? What purpose?

Freedo, the kind of costs involved with switching from monarchy to a presidential system require some sort of purpose to them. We can't all be like you and do sh*t for no reason whatsoever.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 4:29:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Volkov,
Do you think its political dishonesty to have autocrat figure and head of state but to have a political system that opposes the very existence of heraldry succession?

[I abstain from the issue myself]
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 4:45:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 4:29:23 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Volkov,
Do you think its political dishonesty to have autocrat figure and head of state but to have a political system that opposes the very existence of heraldry succession?

If the autocrat had any real power, sure. But the Queen doesn't, at least not here in Canada. The Governor General, her representative in Canada, is ceremonial and complacent with the wishes of the parliamentary government. It's simply a traditional role we have which would otherwise be filled by a German-like presidential system.

For the UK, I can't really say whether its appropriate or not.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 4:47:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 4:45:17 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/2/2010 4:29:23 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Volkov,
Do you think its political dishonesty to have autocrat figure and head of state but to have a political system that opposes the very existence of heraldry succession?

If the autocrat had any real power, sure. But the Queen doesn't, at least not here in Canada. The Governor General, her representative in Canada, is ceremonial and complacent with the wishes of the parliamentary government. It's simply a traditional role we have which would otherwise be filled by a German-like presidential system.

For the UK, I can't really say whether its appropriate or not.

It's not dishonest?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2010 4:49:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/2/2010 4:47:13 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
It's not dishonest?

I don't think it is, no. Parliament doesn't necessarily condemn or condone it with its existence, and if there is no real power to be had, what would it even matter? "Dishonesty" would mean covering up such a fact; no one has covered it up yet. Everyone knows, and most don't care.