Tired of people from other countries interfering in your business? ...an ironic feeling for an American!usmarine wrote:
do you see me debating? i am trying to get you eurotrash out of here so we voters can have some sort of discussion.Uzique wrote:
No it wouldn't, not at all.usmarine wrote:
would it be so hard just to have a discussion for people who are actually voting? i mean really.
On an American political Forum, as opposed to an international gaming community
You're always telling me to go join some scholarly intellectual debate Forum... why don't you apply some of your own logic?
Are you acting dumb on purpose now?usmarine wrote:
UK still has a royal family no?
A royal family as a tourist attraction yes.
A royal family as a body of power and rule? Not since 1701 really (the Act of Settlement, look it up).
The monarch makes speeches and public addresses in the same way that Bono or Bob Dylan makes speeches- calls for humanitarianism and national unity as a 'tradition' are not quite the same as a person that makes executive and legislative decisions. In fact if you want to be petty then yes the monarch is technically involved in certain political processes... as a signature-signer on documents and acts that are already written and approved by the government, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. A monarch basically doesn't even have the power to 'veto' or reject said documents.
Many countries and nations still retain their monarchies and old power structures to serve as a traditional nicety.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-09-03 10:36:15)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
are you telling me they have zero influence? absolute zero?
So tell me how the US interfers in Ireland?Braddock wrote:
Tired of people from other countries interfering in your business? ...an ironic feeling for an American!usmarine wrote:
do you see me debating? i am trying to get you eurotrash out of here so we voters can have some sort of discussion.Uzique wrote:
No it wouldn't, not at all.
On an American political Forum, as opposed to an international gaming community
You're always telling me to go join some scholarly intellectual debate Forum... why don't you apply some of your own logic?
yep, that's what I thought. Now go eat your mutton.
yawn..... go do some car bombs or something against imperialist england or something. terrorist.Braddock wrote:
Tired of people from other countries interfering in your business? ...an ironic feeling for an American!
Yes, absolutely.usmarine wrote:
are you telling me they have zero influence? absolute zero?
You really think the views of our archaic and aristocratic Royals permeate into Parliamentary decisions and acts of public policy-making? Don't be ridiculous. Our royal family are a gimmick and a bunch of celebrity-like public figures. They influence no part of the political process and, as I have mentioned, they are only still involved in said institution as part of traditionalism and formality. The Queen / ruling monarch could be removed from the process of passing legislation and no one would bat an eyelid- let alone produce an outcry.
The only extent we hear about our Royals is if they make public-state visits somewhere to represent (what the world perceives as) Great Britain. They stroll around foreign countries propagating this 'myth' that our country is still a hierarchical class-ruled society with a blue blooded aristocratic ruling class. That was true erm, pre-Cromwell? Before the civil war? Not at all nowadays.
So yes, the royals in Britain have zero effective influence. They may influence our gossip-columns from time to time but so does Paris Hilton, and she's not an Empress.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
You should read the news sometime usmarine...usmarine wrote:
yawn..... go do some car bombs or something against imperialist england or something. terrorist.Braddock wrote:
Tired of people from other countries interfering in your business? ...an ironic feeling for an American!
http://www.breakingnews.ie/Ireland/mhqlgbkfkfql/rss2/
Braddock please confirm for me that the royals are not the ruling-class and decision makers in our society... please.
I feel like I'm filling in an American on the last 300 years of British history. A slightly outdated impression of our nation and its system methinks.
I feel like I'm filling in an American on the last 300 years of British history. A slightly outdated impression of our nation and its system methinks.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Where are all the right wingers bitching about this the same way they bitched when it happened to Sarah Palin? Oh wait, they're not. Well, I guess that's okay, there's nothing particularly hypocritical or any double standards there. Nope, none at all.
Put it this way... if the royal family all died in a plane crash tomorrow it would not affect the running or governing of the United Kingdom in any perceivable way whatsoever. They are purely for show.Uzique wrote:
Braddock please confirm for me that the royals are not the ruling-class and decision makers in our society... please.
I feel like I'm filling in an American on the last 300 years of British history. A slightly outdated impression of our nation and its system methinks.
link has been fixedBraddock wrote:
You should read the news sometime usmarine...usmarine wrote:
yawn..... go do some car bombs or something against imperialist england or something. terrorist.Braddock wrote:
Tired of people from other countries interfering in your business? ...an ironic feeling for an American!
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Wol … ?id=622695
The lucky charms Leprechaun... a true Irish patriot!Lotta_Drool wrote:
link has been fixedBraddock wrote:
You should read the news sometime usmarine...usmarine wrote:
yawn..... go do some car bombs or something against imperialist england or something. terrorist.
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Wol … ?id=622695
what are you talking about? you wankers were talking about her daughter. at least we are talking about the one who is ACTUALLY RUNNING for potus in this thread. see the difference or are you so blinded by labels that you cant see?Spearhead wrote:
Where are all the right wingers bitching about this the same way they bitched when it happened to Sarah Palin? Oh wait, they're not. Well, I guess that's okay, there's nothing particularly hypocritical or any double standards there. Nope, none at all.
Last edited by usmarine (2008-09-03 12:58:27)
she has great baps
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
For Sarah Palins support of abstinence only education, it is relevant that her daughter is pregnant before she's even married.usmarine wrote:
what are you talking about? you wankers were talking about her daughter. at least we are talking about the one who is ACTUALLY RUNNING for potus in this thread. see the difference or are you so blinded by labels that you cant see?Spearhead wrote:
Where are all the right wingers bitching about this the same way they bitched when it happened to Sarah Palin? Oh wait, they're not. Well, I guess that's okay, there's nothing particularly hypocritical or any double standards there. Nope, none at all.
No one ever attacked her daughter. It's about SARAH.
and nobodies kids really listen to their parents. so i fail to see your point.Spearhead wrote:
For Sarah Palins support of abstinence only education, it is relevant that her daughter is pregnant before she's even married.usmarine wrote:
what are you talking about? you wankers were talking about her daughter. at least we are talking about the one who is ACTUALLY RUNNING for potus in this thread. see the difference or are you so blinded by labels that you cant see?Spearhead wrote:
Where are all the right wingers bitching about this the same way they bitched when it happened to Sarah Palin? Oh wait, they're not. Well, I guess that's okay, there's nothing particularly hypocritical or any double standards there. Nope, none at all.
No one ever attacked her daughter. It's about SARAH.
So why even bother with abstinence only education?? We've spent like tens of billions on it because its a "faith based" program.usmarine wrote:
and nobodies kids really listen to their parents. so i fail to see your point.Spearhead wrote:
For Sarah Palins support of abstinence only education, it is relevant that her daughter is pregnant before she's even married.usmarine wrote:
what are you talking about? you wankers were talking about her daughter. at least we are talking about the one who is ACTUALLY RUNNING for potus in this thread. see the difference or are you so blinded by labels that you cant see?
No one ever attacked her daughter. It's about SARAH.
well i am sure some listen, but very few. i dunno. if you pass out condoms some kids wont use those either. there is no real answer. but she believes that is a good way, then so be it. i am not voting on what their kids do, i am voting for what their ideas and beliefs are. i mean my god, who gives a fuck what her kid does.Spearhead wrote:
So why even bother with abstinence only education?? We've spent like tens of billions on it because its a "faith based" program.
I dont give a fuck what her kid does, its just ironic when she's telling everyone else to use abstinence only, and then this happens.usmarine wrote:
well i am sure some listen, but very few. i dunno. if you pass out condoms some kids wont use those either. there is no real answer. but she believes that is a good way, then so be it. i am not voting on what their kids do, i am voting for what their ideas and beliefs are. i mean my god, who gives a fuck what her kid does.Spearhead wrote:
So why even bother with abstinence only education?? We've spent like tens of billions on it because its a "faith based" program.
I'm voting for what their ideas and beliefs are too. I know I wouldnt want my daughter to be pregnant at 17. Failed parenting to be honest.
so, if my son got a dui, it would not be permissible for me to speak out against dui's?Spearhead wrote:
I dont give a fuck what her kid does, its just ironic when she's telling everyone else to use abstinence only, and then this happens.usmarine wrote:
well i am sure some listen, but very few. i dunno. if you pass out condoms some kids wont use those either. there is no real answer. but she believes that is a good way, then so be it. i am not voting on what their kids do, i am voting for what their ideas and beliefs are. i mean my god, who gives a fuck what her kid does.Spearhead wrote:
So why even bother with abstinence only education?? We've spent like tens of billions on it because its a "faith based" program.
I'm voting for what their ideas and beliefs are too. I know I wouldnt want my daughter to be pregnant at 17. Failed parenting to be honest.
No, not at all. They picked her because she's a social conservative. I think it undercuts the "family values" message when her daughter gets pregnant before she's married or even an adult.usmarine wrote:
so, if my son got a dui, it would not be permissible for me to speak out against dui's?Spearhead wrote:
I dont give a fuck what her kid does, its just ironic when she's telling everyone else to use abstinence only, and then this happens.usmarine wrote:
well i am sure some listen, but very few. i dunno. if you pass out condoms some kids wont use those either. there is no real answer. but she believes that is a good way, then so be it. i am not voting on what their kids do, i am voting for what their ideas and beliefs are. i mean my god, who gives a fuck what her kid does.
I'm voting for what their ideas and beliefs are too. I know I wouldnt want my daughter to be pregnant at 17. Failed parenting to be honest.
She definitely should have pushed the "pull out in time" doctrine instead.Spearhead wrote:
So why even bother with abstinence only education?? We've spent like tens of billions on it because its a "faith based" program.usmarine wrote:
and nobodies kids really listen to their parents. so i fail to see your point.Spearhead wrote:
For Sarah Palins support of abstinence only education, it is relevant that her daughter is pregnant before she's even married.
No one ever attacked her daughter. It's about SARAH.
Actually if you bothered checking facts before spouting, you'd know that SARAH's stance is for contraception.Spearhead wrote:
For Sarah Palins support of abstinence only education, it is relevant that her daughter is pregnant before she's even married.usmarine wrote:
what are you talking about? you wankers were talking about her daughter. at least we are talking about the one who is ACTUALLY RUNNING for potus in this thread. see the difference or are you so blinded by labels that you cant see?Spearhead wrote:
Where are all the right wingers bitching about this the same way they bitched when it happened to Sarah Palin? Oh wait, they're not. Well, I guess that's okay, there's nothing particularly hypocritical or any double standards there. Nope, none at all.
No one ever attacked her daughter. It's about SARAH.
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/ … raception/
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2008-09-03 13:28:39)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Never said anything about contraception, did I?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Actually if you bothered checking facts before spouting, you'd know that SARAH's stance is for contraception.Spearhead wrote:
For Sarah Palins support of abstinence only education, it is relevant that her daughter is pregnant before she's even married.usmarine wrote:
what are you talking about? you wankers were talking about her daughter. at least we are talking about the one who is ACTUALLY RUNNING for potus in this thread. see the difference or are you so blinded by labels that you cant see?
No one ever attacked her daughter. It's about SARAH.
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/ … raception/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … icalticker
The daughter is having the baby right?Spearhead wrote:
Never said anything about contraception, did I?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Actually if you bothered checking facts before spouting, you'd know that SARAH's stance is for contraception.Spearhead wrote:
For Sarah Palins support of abstinence only education, it is relevant that her daughter is pregnant before she's even married.
No one ever attacked her daughter. It's about SARAH.
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/ … raception/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … icalticker
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.