Nobody claimed otherwise. The difference is that you cling to the delusion that the PM is appointed upon the whim of the Queen whereas everyone else accepts realises that it is nothing more than a ceremony akin to when the Queen awards trophies to captains of winning football teams at Wembley.<quoted text>
You don't say?
So the UK prime ministers are appointed... as I said... from my very first post on the subject.
Same old word games. I was 100 percent correct that Macmillan was a popular choice in his party to replace Eden. You lost, hence why you cling to one word.<quoted text>
Now let's go back to what you said was an unanimous choice of his party.
Where you wrong? Yes or no?
Nope, you brought up Macmillan on your own accord.<quoted text>
Remember: I had to tell you there was no "election" of his party in the first place.
Nice try, manchild, but knowing all too well you pounce on any wording if it suits your purposes I added:<quoted text>
You don't say?
"the source claims Edward refused assent"
"the source claims"
Edward, in reality, did not refuse anything. Don't believe me? Try reading an actual text on his reign or from a source like BBC Parliament.
Assent has not been refused in over 300 - three, zero, zero - years. Why? Because it is nothing but a ceremonial act.
Fact. Get over it, little boy.
Do I need to hold your little handie round the big bad compy-cated school for grown-ups website?<quoted text>
Where is that proof they even offer a degree in "Politics"?
Before we get to the proof you have two of the?
How about clicking on the undergraduate page? Post graduate page? You do know what those are, right?
Your argument was that Macmillan was appointed non-democratically as PM. Because it was shown as laughable considering that the Tories had no system for electing replacements in sitting Parliaments, and that he was a popular choice anyway, you have clung to a grammatical error and claimed victory anyway, completely side-stepping the substance of the argument.<quoted text>
You mean like when you say something that is wrong, and I prove that you are wrong, and then you say you are only wrong "semantically", even when it is a yes or no question: I cling on to the fact that I have proved you wrong again?
In other words, you have scored a point in a boxing match and are claiming it was a knock-out punch.
Time to distinguish between fantasy and reality, manchild. Attack the argument itself, you know, like adults do.
I see a mammal crossing the road.<quoted text>
Is a fish a mammal?
I see another mammal standing in a field.
Tell me, manchild: are those mammals the same?
Remember: by your logic, we cannot make distinctions - everything is either black or white; mammal or not-mammal. Good luck!
Translation: Barefoot cannot back up his argument because he knows it would be laughed out of the social science department.<quoted text>No need.
Like... the earth revolves around the sun.
Only an idiot would argue that the UK is not a monarchy.
I look forward to your paper disproving it.
Also: I noticed you never did answer my question regarding what the Weimar republic actually was.
If it was not a democracy, then what was it?