Well, first off, see my comments on Message 17417282
which sum up your stance nicely.
So....
Jeez, work it out, you moron. Don't be so sh*t-wittedly fatuous. If you're going to waste screentime on rhetorical questions, at least make them worth reading - worth answering is clearly beyond you.
OK, one chance.
Reflect upon the difference between an ancient constitutional monarchy, accepted by native parliament; and a king (with no constitutional limits on power) imposed by force majeur, by alien armies.
.
.
Now, for those RWE's thicker than pigshit (tautology time) and tougher to stir, here are some hints.
The UK monarch is HOS of a country with 200+ years of functioning parliamentary democracy.
The UK is a stable, settled, undisputed country of considerable age within current borders.
The UK does not have three larger neighbours waiting to annex bordering regions.
The UK does not have local warlords controlling areas without reference to other authority.
The UK monarch has 300 years of constitutional limitations on power.
The UK monarch has minimal sovereign powers - basically the choince of which Parliamentary leader gets a go at forming a government, and the ability to call for a new election (if not over-ruled...).
.
Afghanistan fails all the above before we even start the active governmental powers.
.
Prove that you've actually read AND understood more than two of those and I'll consider wasting more quanta in attempting to raise your knowledge above that of primordial slime, and/or fundamentalist Christian, whichever is less blinkered.
But no promises, so keep your raspers sharpened. |
