Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "Indigenous voice to parliament 'separating Australians based on their race': Hanson" video.

  1. He is not on the right side on this issue. He is on the right side on most other issues. A lot of people don't fall neatly into binary categories when it comes to views on political matters.
    3
  2.  @Ghryst  "...the queen that the Queen of England (or king, now) is not legally allowed (by english law) to be the head of state of anywhere but England,..." What English law?
    1
  3.  @stefanantolin5501  "...she's mostly there already going by the looks of her red neck and leather skin suit." Insulting others demonstrates your hate.
    1
  4.  @Ghryst  "firstly, i am not your personal [deleted] lawyer." I never claimed that you were. You're strawmanning me. You're the person who made a claim, and who therefore has the burden of proof to support it. "im not going to look up and quote statute at you." So you're not going to back up a claim that you made by providing evidence? Then I can dismiss your claim as baseless. "...but i do know where you're going with this, ..." So now you're claiming to be able to read my mind? "...the UN regulations themselves also state that a country must be "sovereign nations" to be allowed to be members, so once again, the crown couldnt possibly be the monarch of those countries, by UN regs in addition to UK law." That simply doesn't follow. A king or queen could be the sovereign of more than one nation. That doesn't mean that both/all those nations are not sovereign nations. "there are so many barriers to this concept its just not funny." And yet the only two barriers you've claimed, you've failed to substantiate or is non-sequitur. "the Head Of State of the commonwealth nation that i live in, must be a citizen of this country, which the king/queen of england certainly is not." Again, what's your evidence? And did you consider that by being declared king or queen, they are also thereby deemed to be a citizen? "what we're looking at is, a parliament that is fraudulently acting on behalf of an imaginary monarch..." Clearly the monarch is not imaginary, and you've not shown that it's acting fraudulently. "...having not been updated since QE2s' death" No need to. At lest in Australia's case, it wasn't updated in that regard since it began. The "queen" referred to is not Queen Elizabeth, but Queen Victoria. Clause 2 refers to "Her Majesty’s [Victoria's] heirs and successors". Both Elizabeth and Charles fall into that category. "today, the governor general is the PM's lapdog doing whatever the PM says,..." Only within normal conventions. So not "whatever". "maybe if you had read the rules of your life, known as your countries constitution,..." I have. "you wouldnt be so ignorant of these really simple principles" I believe that I'm "ignorant" of them because they don't exist. And you haven't shown that they do.
    1
  5.  @Tyronepeader  "fatuous comments often attempt to conceal a complete lack of knowledge." Then why do you make them?
    1
  6.  @Ghryst  "Wrong" So still no evidence. Just a bald assertion.
    1
  7.  @Tyronepeader  "you are a much more frequent and clueless practitioner of the art." And yet you've not shown that I am, so your own baseless (evidence-free) comments qualify.
    1
  8.  @Ghryst  "Wrong." Still no evidence, and repeating yourself does not make it any more true.
    1
  9.  @Ghryst  Ho hum.
    1
  10.  @Ghryst  "that is hate speech." Why? Just because you hate it?
    1
  11.  @Yourmumsrectum  You're obviously not one to have a civil conversation, with that sort of hate speech.
    1