The date of the next general election has been set as Thursday 7 May 2015.
Who you voting and why?
Current prediction is that there will be no overall majority, but that Labour will be the largest party with 282 seats.
Printable View
The date of the next general election has been set as Thursday 7 May 2015.
Who you voting and why?
Current prediction is that there will be no overall majority, but that Labour will be the largest party with 282 seats.
That map right there is all that is wrong with the UK. Despite the nasty party imposing all these cuts which didn't need to happen as the money could easily have come from tax evaders, large swathes of that country are still blue. What is it with the English and their Tories? It's more than politics that is rotten, it has infested the populace.
I would love a Green party Syriza style breakthrough, but the FPTP system means change won't happen. So you are stuck with a Lib/Lab/Con vote and each of which would be a crime against humanity (illegal wars, bank worship, child abuse coverups etc). Just horrible.
Never has a system looked so broken and corrupt.
I do not like the system but I prefer to have a strong government rather than coalition making deals.
Why don't you like the deal making aspect of coalitions? Why would that be a problem?? Isn't compromise good for the soul??Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
No small parties hold the power when they have won less votes. Big parties can blame compromising as to the reasons why their policies failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ykdadamajaWhy don't you like the deal making aspect of coalitions? Why would that be a problem?? Isn't compromise good for the soul??Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
So who is this nasty party? : ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
America doesn't have a labor party, so I'm not familiar with them either. How does the Green party differ/compare to the others?
Are conservatives over there like the ones in America? (Bush-Reagan)
Is there a party that feels itself to be morally above the rest?
And last is the liberal party over there similar to America's liberals who are okay with television shows that allow guys kissing guys. Funding programs that sound good, but don't really do much but make more dependency.
They're okay with girls on girls....well that in particular is okay:rolleyes: Liberals here really allow the conservatives to slap the label of godless across the board.
The Conservatives are historically cruel and are about punishing poor people, maybe something akin to the Republicans. Labour was formerly a working class party, but became a war mongering Conservative clone. 'We hurt poor people less than the Conservatives' is their battle cry. Inspiring stuff. I guess they are a bit like the Democrats. Obama was clearly inspired by Tony Blair. The Liberal Democrats are a party that has no definable philosophy beyond saying one thing and doing quite the opposite. UKIP is a party that talked a good libertarian fight, but turned out to be a racist, servant of the banks. Then there are the Greens who seem like a decent lot, but will be unable to make a breakthrough because of the antiquated and unfair British voting system.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTraeSo who is this nasty party? : ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
America doesn't have a labor party, so I'm not familiar with them either. How does the Green party differ/compare to the others?
Are conservatives over there like the ones in America? (Bush-Reagan)
Is there a party that feels itself to be morally above the rest?
And last is the liberal party over there similar to America's liberals who are okay with television shows that allow guys kissing guys. Funding programs that sound good, but don't really do much but make more dependency.
They're okay with girls on girls....well that in particular is okay:rolleyes: Liberals here really allow the conservatives to slap the label of godless across the board.
UKIP.....cause I CAN
Job Biscuit (Sniffing a pot (p)noodle)!!!
eh eh!!!
Vote Boris (in 5 years time)
The entire British political spectrum would fit comfortably in the Democratic party in America, except for one or two policies by a right wing party that gets about 10% of the vote. Even our right wing parties support a fully socialised healthcare system and an expansive welfare state. They all believe in climate change and evolution too. American politics really is on another planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimTraeSo who is this nasty party? : ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
America doesn't have a labor party, so I'm not familiar with them either. How does the Green party differ/compare to the others?
Are conservatives over there like the ones in America? (Bush-Reagan)
Is there a party that feels itself to be morally above the rest?
And last is the liberal party over there similar to America's liberals who are okay with television shows that allow guys kissing guys. Funding programs that sound good, but don't really do much but make more dependency.
They're okay with girls on girls....well that in particular is okay:rolleyes: Liberals here really allow the conservatives to slap the label of godless across the board.
Any party like the labor party will be labelled as red or commies in the U.S. and that's why they don't have one over there. By international standard, US is a rightist country and that's why most people from other countries don't understand them. You can see the same ol' political debates here that's been repeated over and over again over the years without any resolution. They simply don't understand one another and they never will.;DQuote:
Originally Posted by SlimTraeSo who is this nasty party? : ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
America doesn't have a labor party, so I'm not familiar with them either. How does the Green party differ/compare to the others?
Are conservatives over there like the ones in America? (Bush-Reagan)
Is there a party that feels itself to be morally above the rest?
And last is the liberal party over there similar to America's liberals who are okay with television shows that allow guys kissing guys. Funding programs that sound good, but don't really do much but make more dependency.
They're okay with girls on girls....well that in particular is okay:rolleyes: Liberals here really allow the conservatives to slap the label of godless across the board.
Cash for access' scandal: Sir Malcolm Rifkind says 'unrealistic' for MPs to live on £67,000 salary
The Tory MP has denied any wrongdoing meeting with fake Chinese firm.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind has defended his alleged offer to use his influence to help a private company by saying it is “unrealistic” to expect some MPs to live on their £67,000 basic salary.
The former Conservative Foreign Secretary has denied any wrongdoing after being filmed meeting undercover reporters from the Daily Telegraph and Channel 4’s Dispatches posing as a fictitious Hong Kong-based communications agency called PMR.
Sir Malcolm was yesterday suspended from the Conservative Party following a meeting with Michael Gove.
'Cash for access' scandal: Sir Malcolm Rifkind says 'unrealistic' for MPs to live on £67,000 salary - UK Politics - UK - The Independent
Well Kirkland, do you believe in phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
As for climate change, many believe the climate is ALWAYS in flux....they just don't all buy into the nonsensical belief that MAN is indeed the cause of it.
USA are very right wing but it comes from their history that freedom of the individual is the ultimate expression of democracy and any state intervention is bad. Whereas we see the state as a support mechanism for the most needy and vulnerable.
Can I ask you Brits something. I'm reading a book on the American Revolution dealing much with the British perspective. In the book they mention how disappointed the British prime minister at the time was. I'm wondering how much power the prime minister had at the time of the revolution. I thought all negotiations at the time were done with the king. Thanks for any info. Did the prime minister position arrive at the signing of the Magna Charter
Basically, and this is very basic because I did not do British history at school instead they made me do agricultural farming which was boring as phuck, there was a civil war between royalist and the roundheads. The roundheads in 1649 won. They were parliamentarians who did not want Kings rule. Parliament was supreme and the King/queen just signed acts and were insignificant.
We're not a democracy, democracies are just mob rule, we're a Constitutional (that's why that piece of paper is still important as ever) REPUBLIC. The Constitution and God protect those not in power as those citizens not in power are endowed with inalienable rights from their creator ie things the government can't give out and therefore can't take away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongWell Kirkland, do you believe in phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
As for climate change, many believe the climate is ALWAYS in flux....they just don't all buy into the nonsensical belief that MAN is indeed the cause of it.
Like I said previously, I'm just waiting for you to eventually adopt the full Al Gore position. You were halfway there recently but whatever facts and evidence that caused you to get halfway there has obviously fallen off your little shelf again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongWe're not a democracy, democracies are just mob rule, we're a Constitutional (that's why that piece of paper is still important as ever) REPUBLIC. The Constitution and God protect those not in power as those citizens not in power are endowed with inalienable rights from their creator ie things the government can't give out and therefore can't take away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Apart from black people who only count as 3/5ths of a white person according to the US constitution.
Also, too, Jack Straw. Who hasn't resigned from the Labour party unlike Rifkind who resigned from the Conservative party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Green leader Bennett sorry for 'excruciating' interview
Green Party leader Natalie Bennett has apologised to party members for what she said was a "very bad" radio interview about its housing policy.
Ms Bennett said she had suffered a "mind blank" during the "excruciating" exchange, where she tried to explain how the party would fund a pledge of 500,000 new social rental homes.
She was speaking as the Greens launched their election campaign.
Other policies include a "citizen's income" of £72
a week for all adults.
During an interview on LBC, Ms Bennett seemed to struggle to explain the funding model for the new homes, saying she had a "huge cold".
Later, speaking on the BBC's Daily Politics, she said a fully costed manifesto would be published in March.
"I had a very bad interview on housing this morning," she said.
"I am very happy to confess that and I am very sorry to the Green Party members who I did not do a very good job representing our policies on.
"That happens, I am human."
The policy would cost £27bn, she said (although she had earlier mistakenly said £2.7bn in the LBC interview) which would be partly funded by removing tax relief on mortgage interest for private landlords.
BBC News - Election 2015: Green leader Bennett sorry for 'excruciating' interview
I'm glad you brought this up. This is what I've been trying to say here but first of all lest you misunderstand let me tell you I'm not anti-American, I myself is a product of good ol' American education - I went to American school from kindergarden to high school. I was just trying to explain to the world and the Americans about the general difference in their political system and beliefs. Yes, American is by world standard rightist or right wing nation and aside from the ones Master mentioned, they also almost single-handedly fought communists around the world. This is one reason why a simple health care policy which almost all developed nations have and consider as just a normal requirement for a just society has been struggling to get approved in the US over the decades - it was a victim of red scare. What the people from other part of the world probably didn't know is that the socialist folks and parties, or the lefties, that have been in your political systems for decades will be considered reds to the Americans, which is a no-no for them. And conversely, for the Americans, there are political parties and politicians you consider as reds or commies actively involved and even thriving in most other parts of the world, and they are not considered there as outcasts or anything like that, and are even respected in some countries. Greece is a good example today - they just won the election and are putting to test the EU with their hard-line approach to their economic crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
So why the heck have I been trying to say this the last several months? Well I've been watching Americans discussing socio-economic issues with somewhat leftish fellows here for years debating on more or less the same issues over and over again without getting anything resolved. Obviously, they don't understand one another and I've been just watching here shaking my head and smiling like a fool. I just wanted to clarify the basic difference in their political system and beliefs so they will have some ideas where each one of them are coming from. I hope it helped...
Come to think of it, I never thought about the British point of view on the issue. I've been taught in school how their British motherland would tax the their new world sons without giving them representation, that led to a big tea party in Boston, etc., etc. but never heard about anything regarding the British point of view. So I also want to know if the British folks considered them as their cute little brothers, just like how I consider cutierocco;D, or did they consider them as their miss-guided and ill-mannered lost sons who speak in severely mangled queen's language?Quote:
Originally Posted by walrus
I've had this experience myself. In school, I was taught in world history class the Magellan was killed by a nameless local tribesman in the Philippines. But when I came here, I was surprised to know that that nameless indian fella actually had a name and was a local hero, with his statues displayed in some prominent public places. Talking about points of view...
Which article and clause would I find that in if you would be so kind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Also you didn't answer my question: phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium? Thanks ;D
Wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up first ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
I was listening to that on LBC and nick ferrari didn't have to do much to make her look silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Embarressing.
That is a shame as I like Green but she did sound foolish. Wait until they have the televised debate.
There are many reasons the United States is more individualistic than the rest of the world be it for the fact that this nation was born out of a war against a tyrannical government or for the fact that colonists begat settlers who went off and did for themselves, by themselves, with little to no help from the government, or be it for another reason Americans are how we are and ever since we have arrived the rest of the world has attempted to tell us how to live, how to govern, how to rule....OUR nation, the nation built with the blood sweat and tears of our ancestors. America has attempted to export our values, I don't deny that for one second and some places find these ideas scary, some find it new, some find it silly but again these people these nations aren't from the same birth that America came from, they have different experiences, different cultures, different values.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=octFZaD_EF0
I for one don't want to deal with the government as a part of everyday life, I would assume most people feel like that if they have ever had any true dealings with bureaucracy...but some people apparently are gluttons for punishment, I am not.
Article I, Section 2 use to have a line that read, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongWhich article and clause would I find that in if you would be so kind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Also you didn't answer my question: phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium? Thanks ;D
It did't specifically say "black men", but said if you were not a free person, nor Indian, you were 3/5 of a person.
It was later replaced by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongWish in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up first ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
What makes you think that you're finally right about something? What event has taken place that makes you think, against all the evidence, that you're actually going to be right about something?
You were halfway to Al a couple of weeks ago. You'll get there eventually.
Ex-UKIP councillor Rozanne Duncan: 'No regrets' over racist comments
A councillor expelled by the UK Independence Party over what were described as "deeply racist comments", says she does not regret what she said.
Rozanne Duncan, who sits on Thanet District Council, was filmed making the comments as part of BBC documentary Meet the Ukippers, airing on Sunday.
Mrs Duncan said she felt "betrayed" after being expelled in December for bringing UKIP "into disrepute".
But she has insisted she is not racist and does not regret what she said.
She now represents Cliftonville East - in the Thanet South seat where UKIP leader Mr Farage is running for Parliament - as an independent councillor.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage repeated his condemnation of Mrs Duncan's remarks and stood by the decision to expel her from the party.
"Clearly she doesn't have any understanding of the deep offence she has caused by her comments, and we took the right decision," he told BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House programme.
In the fly-on-the-wall documentary, Mrs Duncan was recorded as telling UKIP press officer Liz Langton Way: "The only people I do have problems with are negroes. And I don't know why.
"I don't know whether there is something in my psyche or whether it's karma from a previous life or whether something happened to me as a very, very young person and I've drawn a veil over it - because that sometimes happens, doesn't it?
"But I really do have a problem with people with negroid features."
BBC News - Ex-UKIP councillor Rozanne Duncan: 'No regrets' over comments
Oh it didn't SPECIFICALLY say black people....so I reckon you're wrong. Shame thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingArticle I, Section 2 use to have a line that read, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongWhich article and clause would I find that in if you would be so kind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Also you didn't answer my question: phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium? Thanks ;D
It did't specifically say "black men", but said if you were not a free person, nor Indian, you were 3/5 of a person.
It was later replaced by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
Also phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium? Still waiting on your answer for that but take your time, study up ;)
I'm not wrong at all. Read a little about your history and find out why your constitution had to make black people 3/5ths of a white person. Also, too, slavery. Apart from the fact that it allowed slavery and for slaves not to be counted as human beings the US constitution was a triumph of equal rights and a shining example to the rest of humanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongOh it didn't SPECIFICALLY say black people....so I reckon you're wrong. Shame thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland LaingArticle I, Section 2 use to have a line that read, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongWhich article and clause would I find that in if you would be so kind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Also you didn't answer my question: phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium? Thanks ;D
It did't specifically say "black men", but said if you were not a free person, nor Indian, you were 3/5 of a person.
It was later replaced by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
Also phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium? Still waiting on your answer for that but take your time, study up ;)
Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And just because you learnt a new couple of big words doesn't mean you understand what you're talking about. So I'll just wait until you finally fully accept that Al Gore was right and that inevitably you were wrong.
Ahem....you said and I quote "Apart from black people who only count as 3/5ths of a white person according to the US constitution" ...... that was NOT the case and NEVER the case ergo you are wrong!
Meanwhile...in the realm of unanswered questions
Phyletic gradualism or Punctuated equilibrium....the world waits
I see. So all those slaves had exactly the same rights as every other person in America. That's an interesting take on American history and not one shared by many historians.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Kabong
And when you use a word like "phyletic" do you really think that people reading it who know you believe you know what you're talking about or do you think they start giggling?
So 100% of black people were slaves? If you hopped in a time machine and told that to Anthony Johnson I'm certain he would be shocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Aww honey, if the question was too complex and you wanted me to break it down for you then you should have just asked princess....I didn't mean to bruise your ego.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Come here Kirkland, sit on my knee and let me tell you a story.....you see phyletic gradualism is a slow drawn out dare I say GRADUAL (see where that comes from, GRADUAL-ism....oooh we're learning...it's fun!) process where an organism undergoes changes in order to best adapt to the challenges the environment presents it with. After a while these changes lead the organism to become an entirely different species from it's ancestors. Kind of like the way some dinosaurs are believed to have slowly and steadily developed into birds.
Now on the other hand we have punctuated equilibrium which is a quick dynamic form of evolution happening over a short period of time where an organism quickly separates from it's ancestors into an entirely different species.
....but I interrupted you....you were being condescending
I love you, really good informative posts, it is like a tennis match.
So we can agree that it was only the black people who were enslaved who counted as 3/5ths of a person as far as the US constitution was concerned. Excellent.Quote:
Originally Posted by El KabongSo 100% of black people were slaves? If you hopped in a time machine and told that to Anthony Johnson I'm certain he would be shocked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Aww honey, if the question was too complex and you wanted me to break it down for you then you should have just asked princess....I didn't mean to bruise your ego.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
Come here Kirkland, sit on my knee and let me tell you a story.....you see phyletic gradualism is a slow drawn out dare I say GRADUAL (see where that comes from, GRADUAL-ism....oooh we're learning...it's fun!) process where an organism undergoes changes in order to best adapt to the challenges the environment presents it with. After a while these changes lead the organism to become an entirely different species from it's ancestors. Kind of like the way some dinosaurs are believed to have slowly and steadily developed into birds.
Now on the other hand we have punctuated equilibrium which is a quick dynamic form of evolution happening over a short period of time where an organism quickly separates from it's ancestors into an entirely different species.
....but I interrupted you....you were being condescending
And yes, I'm going to continue laughing at you until you eventually go the full Al Gore. Then I'm going to laugh even more.