Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So biccat is everyone who has tried alcohol an alcoholic?

@KilKrazy: TBF, most Americans would not recognize the Prince without a byline.

Manchu wrote:@KilKrazy: TBF, most Americans would not recognize the Prince without a byline.

Or a Nazi uniform

dæl wrote:Or a Nazi uniform

No, that was big news here, too.

Manchu wrote:

dæl wrote:Or a Nazi uniform

No, that was big news here, too.

Yeah figured as much, so really all people might know him for, either that or the weed smoking. Hence they would not recognise him without it, or a byline.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you really believe everyone born in the USA has the same chance of becoming president?

You don't even have to be born in the USA.

I am unsure about your skill level as a lawyer.

biccat wrote:

Manchu wrote:I believe the Constitution does mention the president needing to be elected.

No, it provides that the president "be elected".


The Constitutional requirements for eligibility are:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Yeah, foreign-born people who become naturalized still are not eligible for the office of president, as they were neither born in the USA nor were they citizens at the time that the constitution was adopted. That second bit is only there because every president before Van Buren (I think) was technically born a British citizen.


You even quoted the right section of the constitution, yet failed to understand what it said. Just... wow.

biccat wrote:edit: To head off some pedant who thinks he's witty; yes, I know he didn't "smoke" cocaine.

I am the witty pedant your mother warned you about: I don't know why you used quotes there. It is possible to smoke cocaine. You can do it on its own, or in its crack rock form.

dæl wrote:Yeah figured as much, so really all people might know him for, either that or the weed smoking. Hence they would not recognise him without it, or a byline.

Not quite. The Nazi costume deal was always splashed with huge-letter headlines. Strangely, we don't see an awful lot of front page headlines (or any at all) about Prince Harry doing his part in Afghanistan ...

Manchu wrote:@KilKrazy: TBF, most Americans would not recognize the Prince without a byline.

To be really fair he quoted KK and the image comes up as text, which says "princeharry."

Manchu wrote:

dæl wrote:Yeah figured as much, so really all people might know him for, either that or the weed smoking. Hence they would not recognise him without it, or a byline.

Not quite. The Nazi costume deal was always splashed with huge-letter headlines. Strangely, we don't see an awful lot of front page headlines (or any at all) about Prince Harry doing his part in Afghanistan ...

There was a massive debate here after it was leaked as he might have put his fellow soldiers in greater danger, was taking up extra resources while other soldiers didn't have body armour, and other such things. Personally, I think he did the right thing going there, but the media should not have reported it until he was back.

Manchu wrote:

dæl wrote:Yeah figured as much, so really all people might know him for, either that or the weed smoking. Hence they would not recognise him without it, or a byline.

Not quite. The Nazi costume deal was always splashed with huge-letter headlines. Strangely, we don't see an awful lot of front page headlines (or any at all) about Prince Harry doing his part in Afghanistan ...

Going to Afghanistan was a mistake. He basically put a giant day-glo bullseye on his unit while he was there, and contributed nothing more than any other soldier. But the gesture was nice.


...and I never understood, outside of poor taste, what the big deal about his costume was. Wasn't the king of England, whoever the one that abdicated the throne in the 1930s, an actual Nazi?

I believe his deployment was not publicly known until an Australian magazine broke the story.

And no, Edward VIII was not a Nazi.

Just watched the end of the concert, it was great, Madness on top of the palace, and Sir Paul McCartney at the end.

Aura watched the whole thing, and it was apparent to why Cheryl Cole mimes when live, apparently murdered a great Lady Antebellum song.

I was disappointed in the distinct lack of thrash. I could have easily envisaged Liz moshing to 'Battery' by Metallica...

Still, she deserves to be queen for being forced to sit through hours of gak concerts like that.

azazel the cat wrote:

Manchu wrote:

dæl wrote:Yeah figured as much, so really all people might know him for, either that or the weed smoking. Hence they would not recognise him without it, or a byline.

Not quite. The Nazi costume deal was always splashed with huge-letter headlines. Strangely, we don't see an awful lot of front page headlines (or any at all) about Prince Harry doing his part in Afghanistan ...

Going to Afghanistan was a mistake. He basically put a giant day-glo bullseye on his unit while he was there, and contributed nothing more than any other soldier. But the gesture was nice.

Do you suppose that was the entire point? *Gasp* Royals serving their country like any other bloke, those self righteous DEMONS. The Afgans had no idea Prince Harry was in country so your day glo bulls eye is at best wishful fiction.

Indeed and contributing nothing more than a normal soldier is kind of the point of him going.

Sons of royalty in conflict zones 1 Sons of political Leaders in conflict zones 0.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and the concert was alright. Will.I.am popping up in another British event is starting to get a bit perplexing?

Rolf Harris should have closed. FACT

notprop wrote:Indeed and contributing nothing more than a normal soldier is kind of the point of him going.

Sons of royalty in conflict zones 1 Sons of political Leaders in conflict zones 0.

Based on what? How many members of parliament have sons or daughters in the military?

Speculation, hearsay and scribblings on the toilet wall of course.

Surely the purpose of him going was PR for the royal family. As a second son he's got a pretty small chance of ever being king.

George Spiggott wrote: As a second son he's got a pretty small chance of ever being king.

You mean like this guy?

azazel the cat wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you really believe everyone born in the USA has the same chance of becoming president?

You don't even have to be born in the USA.

I am unsure about your skill level as a lawyer.

The term is "non-justiciable political question."

Lawyer speak for "don't like it? Vote."

AustonT wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:As a second son he's got a pretty small chance of ever being king.

You mean like this guy?

Yep, the circumstances of him becoming king were really very specific.

If Harry's chances were good he would not have been allowed to be deployed in Afghanistan.

@notprop.
To be fair there are many pearls of wisdom that can be learned from toilet walls, if you're willing to sift through the offers of buggery.

@ George Spiggott.
I believe Harry now outranks his brother, and there's talk of Harry heading back out there. This time in an Apache, which would be better all round as he'd be far less recognisable while in a gunship.

dæl wrote:@ George Spiggott.
I believe Harry now outranks his brother, and there's talk of Harry heading back out there. This time in an Apache, which would be better all round as he'd be far less recognisable while in a gunship.

So what?

George Spiggott wrote:

dæl wrote:@ George Spiggott.
I believe Harry now outranks his brother, and there's talk of Harry heading back out there. This time in an Apache, which would be better all round as he'd be far less recognisable while in a gunship.

So what?

So it removes the main concern of him being recognised and thus being a liability to his unit.

dæl wrote:So it removes the main concern of him being recognised and thus being a liability to his unit.

I understand the chances of this were slight anyway. You could reduce the chance further by bringing them all home. We could save some money into the bargain, I understand cash is short right now.

George Spiggott wrote:

dæl wrote:So it removes the main concern of him being recognised and thus being a liability to his unit.

I understand the chances of this were slight anyway. You could reduce the chance further by bringing them all home. We could save some money into the bargain, I understand cash is short right now.

As for it being a small chance, I wouldn't have wanted to be ginger when he was on infantry detail over there. As for bringing them back, well we should have started thinking about that a decade ago, an invasion is all well and good if you really think it necessary, but you should probably think about your exit strategy before you even go.

dæl wrote:As for it being a small chance, I wouldn't have wanted to be ginger when he was on infantry detail over there. As for bringing them back, well we should have started thinking about that a decade ago, an invasion is all well and good if you really think it necessary, but you should probably think about your exit strategy before you even go.

I said that a decade ago, where were you?

George Spiggott wrote:

dæl wrote:As for it being a small chance, I wouldn't have wanted to be ginger when he was on infantry detail over there. As for bringing them back, well we should have started thinking about that a decade ago, an invasion is all well and good if you really think it necessary, but you should probably think about your exit strategy before you even go.

I said that a decade ago, where were you?

Marching against Iraq.

biccat wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you really believe everyone born in the USA has the same chance of becoming president?

You don't even have to be born in the USA.

I am unsure about your skill level as a lawyer.

The term is "non-justiciable political question."

Lawyer speak for "don't like it? Vote."

I hope that you are not attempting to sidestep the fact that the consitution is in its essence a form of contract, and you, being a contract lawyer of sorts, managed to quote a portion of said contract whilst failing to understand its meaning.

I would be unsure of the skill level of any tort lawyer who appears to be unable to properly read a contract.



And last I heard, the interpretation of the wording of your constitution was not considered to be non-justiciable. But what do I know? I'm Canadian, eh?

Guys, this thread is supposed to be about how awesome the Queen is, not how rubbish the constitution of the country we didn't want so gave away is