Which amounts to nothing considering that in the past century at least PMs have been appointed based on the results of the general elections.<quoted text>
Putting aside that every single UK prime minister in the history of time has been appointed by a monarch.
If the Queen had selected a non Tory PM in '57, then maybe, Barefoot, the people would have worried about democracy. Yet, she did not. Why? Because a Tory government entitled the people to a Tory PM - and thus Macmillan.
If Macmillan did not have a large support within the Tory ranks he would not have been selected. The Queen rubber stamped the party majority.<quoted text>
He was appointed and there was no party election, SuperFAG.
How about defining democracy?<quoted text>
And unanimous was meant to illustrate that Macmillan was the most popular choice. You, of course, have ignored this point to try and refute me on semantics.<quoted text>
You told us he was the UNANIMOUS choice.
Again: you have scored a point in a boxing match and have run to the referee claiming a knock out.
Of course you do. In manchild land you are the expert about everything and nobody else knows anything.<quoted text>
I say that you are a liar.
I also say that you are arguing with yourself.<quoted text>
I also say he wasn't the elected choice.
Was Macmillan the popular choice of the Tories? Yes or no?<quoted text>
Was he the UNANIMOUS choice, SuperFAG, yes or no?
Was he the elected choice, yes or no?
Are variants the same as other variants within their umbrella terms? Yes or no?<quoted text>Is a constitutional monarchy a monarchy, yes or no?
So is Britain a Constitutional monarchy or not?<quoted text>Why would you?
I provided you the right answer from the very first time it was mentioned.
The UK does NOT have a constitution.
I don't care if you answer it or not- clearly, you don't even know what a monarchy is.
Speaking of grammar, are you going to define democracy yet?<quoted text>So it is your explanation that anything you ever say- any time anywhere no matter what- you can define it as a "grammatical error".
Even though there was absolutely no grammatical error in the statement you put up.
Even yes or no questions, eh, SuperFAG, any position you take can be explained away as a grammatical error.
I am still waiting for you to post a link to a university that issues degrees in "politics".
What are your new demands now?
Considering your inability to construct an effective argument outwith online dictionaries and independent websites, your clear absence of social skills and inability to go a day without posting over 75-80 posts on Topix, I am going to assume that you have no degrees.<quoted text>
Putting aside you don't know sh!t about what degrees I may or may not have.
And they have as evidenced in the above links. I will look out blueprints for how to build a time machine for your next demand of having to watch my graduation ceremonies in person.<quoted text>
Hint: SuperFAG, if you want to invent degrees that you claim to have, you might make sure the university you claim to have attended actually has such degrees.