Are mammals A, B and C the same?<quoted text>The United King_dom is a monarchy, yes or no?
You claim that Britain is not a democracy because it has a monarch, in other words, a head of state. By your logic, any country with a head of state is not a democracy.<quoted text>The USA is a monarchy, yes or no?
By your logic, democracies simply cannot exist.
What was the Weimar Republic if it was not a democracy?
Translation: Barefoot believes that if a case can be defined by one word, then it cannot be defined by any other word.<quoted text>Do you remember the have you stopped downloading kiddie porn question you refuse to answer, yes or no?
Albert Einstein can be defined as male, but not as anything else.
Your logic, your rules.
You keep forgetting that the Lords do next-to-nothing.<quoted text>You keep forgetting the fact that MOST of the UK parliament is appointed.
And waste my time having to remind you.
Like a typical fundamentalist you think that being wrong equates to lying. I picked a wrong word to describe Macmillan's popularity; you thus pounce on this word and proclaim to the world that I am a liar despite the fact that you, of all people, are exceptionally dishonest with Britain's government and refuse to address the substance of the argument.<quoted text>Word games?
So when you lie about the nomination of Macmillan being the UNANIMOUS choice, you are insisting that I am not allowed to the point that you lie?
I am still waiting for you to announce that you were WRONG and that Macmillan was not only NOT the UNANIMOUS choice, but he was not even the UNANIMOUS choice of his own party.
Do you know what UNANIMOUS means, SuperFAG?
To lie is to make a false statement with the intention to deceive; I did not.
By your logic, everyone who has ever been wrong has lied. This includes you, my manchild friend, when you claimed that the Weimar republic was not a democracy.
Since you are an expert on language, how about defining democracy at long last instead of clinging to a one-word victory?<quoted text>
Do you mean like when you tried to excuse yourself out of saying that you were wrong by insisting it was a "grammatical error"?
In an assertion that had no grammatical errors?
Clearly: you can excuse yourself out of anything (as we have seen here) by insisting whatever you say was a 'grammatical error'.
Scores a point; claims knock out.
If Britain is not a Constitutional monarchy by virtue of not having a Constitution, does that mean the source you cited calling us as such is wrong?<quoted text>
Sweetie: You know what happens when you ASSuME.
Is being wrong and lying the same thing?<quoted text>He wasn't popular (a) and UNANIMOUS is one of those black and white questions that you insist don't exist.
I.E. It was an either unanimous choice... or you lied.[QUOTE]
He was certainly popular - your Wiki quote even stated as such when it said "near unanimous".
Whoops - you have just, by your own logic, lied.
Unless you can prove me wrong, of course.
[QUOTE who="barefoot2626"] <quoted text>
So I was correct when I said that you lied.
How about when you claimed that universities do not issue politics degrees? Were you lying then?(I see you have not even bothered admitting being wrong here).
How about when you claimed the Weimar republic was not a democracy? Is that a lie?
How about when you keep refusing to answer whether mammal A and B are the same due to all cases having to adhere to their umbrella terms? Was that lying?
By all means, tell me.
While you have that dictionary open, do you mind defining democracy for me?u·nan·i·mous