Re: General Election 2015
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
Re: General Election 2015
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.
Re: General Election 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
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.
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.
Re: General Election 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
They all believe in climate change and evolution too.
Well Kirkland, do you believe in phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium?
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.
Re: General Election 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
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.
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.
Apart from black people who only count as 3/5ths of a white person according to the US constitution.
Re: General Election 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
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
Also, too, Jack Straw. Who hasn't resigned from the Labour party unlike Rifkind who resigned from the Conservative party.
Re: General Election 2015
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
Re: General Election 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
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.
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.
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...
Re: General Election 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by
walrus
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
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?
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...
Re: General Election 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Apart from black people who only count as 3/5ths of a white person according to the US constitution.
Which article and clause would I find that in if you would be so kind?
Also you didn't answer my question: phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium? Thanks ;D
Re: General Election 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Like I said previously, I'm just waiting for you to eventually adopt the full Al Gore position.
Wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up first ;)
Re: General Election 2015
That is a shame as I like Green but she did sound foolish. Wait until they have the televised debate.
Re: General Election 2015
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.
Re: General Election 2015
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Apart from black people who only count as 3/5ths of a white person according to the US constitution.
Which article and clause would I find that in if you would be so kind?
Also you didn't answer my question: phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium? Thanks ;D
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."
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."