Well ... what shall we all talk about now?
Printable View
Well ... what shall we all talk about now?
Somthing political perhaps?
Has there been a fundamental change in the way the country's business is conducted in Washington?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Oh good question Duncan.
I know some would say yes.
Some would say that those in authority aparently no longer care what the "people" think anymore, especially since it seems like so many laws are on the verge of being passed right now despite the public clamore against them.
Others would say its a political ploy becuse just as many laws were passed that were unwanted in the previous administration.
The truth is I believe that there are varying degrees of this kind of thing present throughout all governments histories.
The real "change" to me at least isnt about lack of representation after election so much as the level of media involvment in the polorization proccess between our two main political parties.
Okay, so the server is located in the USA and a lot of people on the Library are from the USA, but please, don't refer to the USA as 'the country' because, hey, I'm from Belgium and a lot of other members here are not from 'the country' ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
And my answer to your question is 'No', for the simple fact that the USA's business is not conducted out of Washington DC. Business is conducted through the Banks who operate from yonder plush seat at the Diner's Club or some such...
JJ
The media used to be called the forth estate. An arm of Government that was to keep the rest honest. It seems that now the media is now a adjunct to the political parties. With the vast majority of them in bed with the radical left!
As for that "fundamental change" in the way Washington conducts business. I have yet to see that happen. In fact the old Washington ploy of putting something unpalatable in as an amendment to something that must pass. With that there is the corollary used against the opposition is that if they defeat the bill they are against that necessary action, usually defense, or if the bill passes they call the opposition hypocrites in railing against that for which they vote. I see this still happening so I can only presume the :fundamental change" is in overall governance ideas for the nation. The President has already said the the national interests of the country are not important if another country disagrees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Everyone knows that there is only one country in the world, the one country that rules most of it... the United Kingdom. Ok, we've let some of you rule yourselves for a little while, but everyone knows that is only temporary... We'll welcome you back into the Empire when you are well and truly ready :)
Seriously, I'm actually pleased to have a break from serious political debate for a short while.
There was no hubris in saying "the country" as I at the same time referred to the seat of power, ie Washington DC. Therefore there should be no confusion.
As for the NWO, well the old saw about "money talks" does have some weight. Seeing as how people are spending tens of millions of dollars for a four year contract job that pays $400,000. Unless you want to count the pension, $191,300. That increases each time there is a federal wage increase. these costs do not even consider the cost of the body guards and and offices and staff. Life expectancy and no increase means nearly $7 million life time income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyJump
It appears the Harry Reid is determined to fill all of our stockings this year!!
It is unfortunate though that he plans on doing that with lumps of coal, Copenhagen not withstanding!
Speaking of the lack of discussion about non Americian (Primaraly USA) dominated political discussion lets not forget the European, not to mention all other world political organizations.
What are the main party Divisions out there? How and where do they fit into things in general etc etc.
Is the USA the new Rome?
Speaking as a jingoistic Colonel Blimp, you don't know how glad I am that someone else said that and not me!Quote:
Originally Posted by fetishdj
However, we can only let the British bits back into the Empire - and perhaps the areas we reserved for the Indians. The rest would have to go back to France, Spain, Russia and Holland ... and Hawaii would be on its own.
Meh, by divine right we still own parts of France... or would if Mary I hadn't been stupid enough to lose Calais :)
Not sure anyone wants a debate on European poilitics... there is one advantage to a 2 party system and that is it is easy to understand. Most European countries now have many, many parties and the way they interact within Europe is complicated. The parties that have power in their individual countries are not necessarily the ones that have power in Europe. For example, the Green party in Britain rarely stands for general election (they have one or two seats in parliament which they sometimes stand for and I am not aware of them winning anywhere) but in the European elections they often get several seats. Of course, they can do more for the environment in Europe (because Europe has more power over industrial standards) than they could in the UK parliament, even if they actually performed the miracle of getting a majority in parliament and therefore determining the government...
Of course, the main problem is that many of the smaller parties are too small to effectively create a government (and they are mainly single issue parties) so we are, in effect, limited still to the 2 and a half party system we have had for years...
What is with the fracas involving that Italian Minister?
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Since you mention the "Greens". If the Greens got what they truly wanted the world population would likely be, at best, in the millions. Rather than where it is now. Also when the population was in that neighborhood it took three days to get from the east coast of this state to the State Capital, a distance of some 70 miles!
Quote:
Originally Posted by fetishdj
I agree (odd, we agree on something :) )the greens are in no way suited for higher levels of power. Put them in charge of a country and they would have trouble. This is why they are better off in Brussels deciding things about emissions and so on.
By Italian Minister, I assume you mean Berlisconi (who is actually the president) who got attacked at a rally the other day? Or something else which I missed due to not seeing the news much today?
denuseri, with all due respect but i am not sure what you mean by [quote= Is the USA the new Rome?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Do you mean spiritually or Empire building, or political?
Well this is my Rant.
[History] The British Empire was bigger than the Roman Empire, but just like the Romans we gave some countries back and lost other countries. We still have however Countries that still have close relations with us and still respect our Queen. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and that is to name but a few, so if that is what you mean, forget it. Empires are dead but Europe is still trying to take any country that it opposes by stealth without using an army, it expects everyone else to fight its battles. I expect the English and Americans to go and bail them out at some stage in the near future, it will probably be after the terrorists they refuse to fight in Afghanistan, rip their countries to bits. Europe is so much in fear of England that they made Berlusconi their King, and told us we can keep Blair and Gordon Brown as our dictator’s, and as a dictator Brown is doing Quite well, I believe he has asked for a transfer to North Korea next year as a replacement for the one they have.
Now spiritually you can forget that one,
The Roman Catholic Church has one billion members including the Christian faith, and that is only one sixth of the world population. They are probably out-numbered by atheists; some god fearing people have moved on and believe in science and evolution. No one country leads the way in politics or by example, they are too busy watching their own backs. The truth of the matter is, the British are living and dying alongside the Americans in the name of freedom. The Europeans are quite happy to see the British and Americans do this as long as Brown lets them keep chipping away at our Sovereign Nation, and the Americans give them a nuclear shield in Europe. I have no time for Europe, and neither have 65% of the United Kingdom, [Fact]. The divisions are not in the countries but between the countries, and the divisions are made by politics.
Rgards Ian
Well then since we wish to equate Brittian with Rome, than perhaps the USA is the new Constantinople?
We seem to be the dominant topic of allmost every political discussion on these forums. But that is spurious I am sure since this is primarally an english speaking site.
Spiritually? I fail to see where that came from? Whats Catholisim got to do with it? I thought GB went with its own church anyways....If one thinks, that having freedom of religion inheriently gives liscense to such I suppose so then, but I do believe that religion isnt what I am implying. (at least out side of a religious position as propogators of a Neo-Crusades) At least not yet, The Romans and classical weastern society did have all sorts of religious freedom compared to their counterparts, at least until the adoption of christianity (in that the USA is still very much "republicanized" in the roman sence as opposed to imperial). Though I do suppose if one means the USA acts as the moral compass for religious freedom and tolerance...shurgs idk
Politically however:
We are called upon to be the worlds defender and police force , the world economy is dependent upon our markets in a way, sometimes quite directly, there is no other country in the world that dictates poliecy to us, it is allways the other way around (at least since we took the riegns from Brittan during WW2). Etc etc, the list goes on.... all things Rome and then later Constantinople once did in thier day and age.
All besides the point, I shall restate the question more clearly since there is obvious confussion.
Has the USA become too imperial with the rest of the world?
If we truely wish to be a "New Rome" than do we also not have the same implied nessesity of establishing wise dominion, so as to at least avoid the pitfalls of complancency that lead to Romes fall? (Or any Empire/nation etc)
You could be right, but not for the reasons you suggest, and I think you do not speak for most Brits. In fact, most Brits want their boys out of Afghanistan and wish they'd never gone in there at all ... We of all nations must know how futile it is to try to subdue the Afghans.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian 2411
But we are there, along with America and our European allies: France, Poland, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Austria,
Netherlands, Romania, Denmark, Czech Republic, Hungary, Macedonia, Albania, Georgia, Portugal, Ukraine, Ireland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Bulgaria, Belgium, Croatia, Slovakia, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Estonia, Greece, and Luxembourg. As well as, of couse, many non-European nations.
We have more people out there than they do? So what? All that proves is that we are more belligerent than they are - something that never needed proving. But isn't it good to see how our rebellious offspring follows in our footsteps so closely?
Constantinople? Very good, den! Although it fell before Rome did, and I believe the adherents of the Western Church sacked that city long before the Turks got there. I'm not sure how the parallels run here, but I'd hate either Europe or USA to turn against the other in the pretence of rescuing it.
As far as I can see, America's imperialism is represented by a commercial empire. Politically, the USA seems to be introverted, xenophobic and wholly self-interested. The contrast is irreconcilable! Politically it has few "overseas territories" (Newspeak for "colonies"), but its business interests reach into every country in the world.
Inevitably, USA will diminish and fall, just like every other imperial power before it, and new ones - China, India, Russia (yes, you read that right) and Brazil, will take over ... for a while. Meanwhile, we would all be grateful for as much benign wisdom as the US is able to show the world, starting with Copenhagen.
I don’t know what country you come from MMI, but if it is GB then you had better get up to speed. Of a pole by [you gov] a few months ago there was a 65% of the British population wishing to leave the European community all together. Europeans are greedy and manipulative, they have forced their laws on the British population through back door dealings, and there is not an ounce of decency in the European parliament. As for these other countries that are backing the Brits and The Americans in Afghanistan, where the fuck are they. Spain; I think had a train blown up and they pulled half their troops out for fear of reprisals, now that says it all. The others that you mention are just a token force, there but not seen, probably still in the dug outs. I am not stupid so don’t take me for a fool, the Afghan’s have been invaded by the British Twice, the Russians once, they are a nation of fighters that have been fighting between tribes since time began. And when this force of two real nations UK and USA leave they will still be fighting.
I at no time inferred that the Brits loved the war, and of course they don’t, and neither do they like their loved ones being sent home in body bags. The truth is, until Afghanistan is free of alkida; there will always be BRIT/AMERICAN forces there. As for the troops not wanting to be there or their families saying the same, I would like to point out that I was in the UK special forces, and spent over two years getting shot at, nail bombed and Molotov cocktailed by the very same people we were protecting in Northern Ireland. My family and I and all my comrades never wanted to be there either, so please don’t belly ache to me about useless battles, and how we should not be there.
When it comes to kicking ass the Europeans are never there, the three main words in their dictionary is Capitulate, surrender, and retreat. If you look at my avatar you will see United Kingdom, and it means that I am proud of where I come from.
Regards Ian
Wow, sounds familiar. Methinks it is EXACTLY what we're going through right now with the American government!Quote:
Originally Posted by ian 2411
I'm perectly happy to accept your assurance that you're neither stupid nor a fool. I didn't know I'd treated you as one, but if you feel I have ... well, let's leave it there, shall we?Quote:
Originally Posted by ian 2411
Nor did I challenge your assertion that 65% of Brits want to leave Europe, I simply pointed out that you did not speak for them all, because many want to leave for reasons that are not bigoted, racist or xenophobic, but for reasons based on economic or political principles. So rather than telling me to get up to speed, I suggest you slow down enough to build up the words in your mind as your finger passes over the letters, and take a moment to understand them.
As for NI, that has nothing to do with what we were talking about, so don't accuse ME of bellyaching: someone else is doing that! However, as a member of the armed forces, it would be intersting to hear your views as to why the people whom the British Army went into Ulster to protect - the Catholic minority - turned against them so violently within months. What did the Army do so wrong?
30 years of occupation, and then withdrawn without achieving peace, in order to give peace a chance. Do I now hear cries of Tiocfaidh ár lá coming accross the Irish Sea?
Finally, you have no monopoly over Britannia: she represents all of England (not the United Kingdom, but England), and "all of England" includes people with different attitudes from yours. I could use her as my avater too. In fact, I quite fancy being blown by an Italian goddess.
Your question about NI is a very good one and i wish to hell i could answer it, but the truth is the trouble started with King Billy. The prods were the occupying loyalist force, and the Catholic Minority saw the british army as part and parcel of the problem. It was every soldiers nightmare, because in parts of Belfast we could not even trust the prods. I personly hated the place because everyone was your freind, and everyone was your enemy. I had two tours over there and i wouldn't go back there for a free holiday.
You are correct, and i was a little fast with that reply, i know it is no excuse but i was a little tired. There are as you say a lot of soldiers from Europe in Afghanistan but most are not at the sharp end, and it is not in their contract to be at the sharp end. I know that sounds daft but i read that on the WWW dictionary, Afghanistan 2002-today. Then there is of course poor old Britania, well the Euro MPs have pulled so many plugs on GB that she is sinking into the sea and at a very fast rate. Europe is not about politics it is i think all about power. I have to admit that at the moment that the USA sneezes and the rest of the world catches cold, but Europe want a United States of Europe to match America, but if it ever happens it will be minus the UK, the people would not alow it.
Nice exchange you two, lol I looved it!
Oh btw, "classically" speaking FYI:
Fall of Rome...476 AD
Fall of Constantinople...1453 AD
I stand corrected, den. The City of Rome fell when you said it did.
What I was alluding to, however, was the Frankish sacking of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade, and by "Rome" I really meant the Western Church. My point was that it would be a disaster if two supposed allies - Europe and the USA - turned against each other like Constantinople and the Western Crusaders did.
Something you ought to think of MMI is the fact that Europe is already trying to be a power against the USA. It is because of their own stupid laws that no Country in Europ can deal direct with America, and they hate it because the UK and America have this special reationship and alience with each other. Americas foothold into Europe is Via the UK, and at the moment it goes both ways. Europe are at bitter battles with the UK about us dealing openly with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, parts of Africa, the Falklands and several other countries that are in our Comanwealth., but there is Damn all they can do about it. The euro parliment keep coming back and telling the UK that it is an unfair advantage, but because it is written in our own constution, there is damn all they can do with it. Start messing with our Comanwealth countries, and Europe will have their ass kicked, and big time by the British people. Europe made their own shacles in their bid to be the greedy, now they have to live with them, and tough shit. I might be wrong, so i say this as i look over my shoulder, to see if [denuseri] is standing ready to pounce with her encyclopedia mind. Britain give Europe something like £45 million every week, more than 80% of the other countries give, and we have to beg to get a handout from them. We are paying so that an Italian dairy farmer can live like the rest of the farmers in the UK, it is madness on a big scale, but i have a feeling that things will change after the elections next year when we get rid of Dictator Brown and the rest of his idiots. Bloody hell he is a scotsman for Gods sake, he should be up in Scotland in their own parliment, not down here messing the English about. I can feel denu about so i will say into the nothingness casualy, just as if i was talking to myself, i wonder when the British Empire started to fall to pieces.
Regards ian
I have no problem with the idea of a federal Europe. Remember the USA is a federation of states, and it has done very nicely as a result. Canada and Australia, too. So why resist the idea in Europe?
It is no more practical now for Britain to leave the EU than it would be for Texas to leave the USA, and if it came to a choice between the EU and the Commonwealth, it is obvious which way the country would have to go ... but here's a thought ... why not offer special relationships with the EU to all Commonwealth nations - or even membership!
After all, the EU is really only a rich man's club, and to admit third world nations (as well as Canada, Australia, and the rest of the wealthier Commonwealth countries - assuming they wanted to) would actually do something constructive to tackle world poverty, as well as creating a counterbalance to USA and China.
Hey I am not an encyclopedia I am a real live girl! lol
I just happen to be a history student is all.
Whats ironic is many of the EU's growing pains are things the USA has allready went through a long time ago. Of course it took a Civil War before we finally solidified true Federal control over the individual states. Lets hope Eruope avoids that one!
As for Europe and Great Brittan being allied with the USA, lets face it people, after litterally saving europe twice (once in WW2 and once in the subsequent cold war against the Soviets after)(you all sure dont have to speak german or russian now do ya?) a certian degree of cooporation is natural for continued economic posterity as well as security. Furthermore its perfectly natural that our relationship is going to be closer with the one parent country that wasnt on the other side or remained neutral and still kept its sovernity as an ally from the get go.
Its really no different than our relationships with Taiwan and Japan VS the rest of Asia in some ways, but seriously, does anyone think the USA will ever stand against Brittan over another country so long as Brittan stands with us?
Man got hit in the face with a model of some statue or building!
Quote:
Originally Posted by fetishdj
"(S)ome god fearing people have moved on and believe in science and evolution." Excuse me? One can not believe is science and evolution and be God fearing? Methinks you need to refresh your history of scientific advancement. The majority of which came either from the church, men of faith, or sponsored by the church!
Your data on the numbers of RCs is partly correct. There are one billion RCs, which is over one-half of all christians. Therefore the RCs by themselves are as numerous as the Chinese. Then if one considers adding The Eastern Orthodox, Catholics become 1.3 billion(still about 1/6). At about 17% this dwarfs the worlds number of atheists, who approximate 2.3%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ian 2411
Just to set the record straight. Unlike the rest of the states, with the possible exception of Hawaii under tribal rule, Texas was an independant free-standing republic complete with foreign ambassadors before joining the United States. Thus our entry pact is different making it much easier return to our status as a free-standing republic. Had it not been for the Battle of San Jacinto fought right here in Harris County, here we won
our own independence from Mexico the United States would be smaller by 1/3.
While it's true that Texas may have the legal right to secede, it's doubtful they would have the economic stability to survive such an act. Especially when the religious nuts who are trying to destroy the Texas Board of Education get the power to push the state back into the dark ages. Without the power of the US Constitution to keep them in check I have no doubt they would manage to virtually destroy the education system in Texas within one year of secession.Quote:
Originally Posted by skp2bear
And good riddance to 'em!
Ok lets get this right If you were god fearing and you have moved on, it means you no longer believe in god but science and evolution, that was the point i was making and while we are about scoring points. My data apart from the atheists is perfectly correct, i failed to mention that atheists are part of the Nontheist group, and they number 11%, meaning still that you are correct that the Catholic church out number them. I am but a mear mortal and lible to make mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Wicipedia: -
The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian church. With more than a billion members, over half of all Christians[note 2] and more than one-sixth of the world's population, the Catholic Church is a communion of the Western, or (Latin Rite) Church, and 22 autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches (called particular churches), comprising a total of 2,795 dioceses in 2008. The Church's highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality, and governance is the Pope,[15] currently Pope Benedict XVI, who holds supreme authority in concert with the College of Bishops, of which he is the head.[16][17][18] The Catholic community is made up of an ordained ministry and the laity; members of either group may belong to organized religious communities.[19]
The men of faith are self proclaimed, they do it because it is their firm belief, then they push their philosaphy down our throats. Get real it is just a big club.
Lighten up, you are picking weak holes.
Regards ian
I strongly disagree with you Thorne. Even the army-navy game has a prayer before it. also the doctrine of evolution has been proven to be fals in many instances. presenting both views as equals should be taught as both are correct. The theory of evolutions says we all came from a single cell. That does not contradict religious view except for the few literalists who forget that three different creation stories are told in the first three chapters of Genesis. What the authors are trying to say is that a supreme being started everything. How else can you explain where that first cell came from or even the right elements and conditions necessary to produce it
I would have to say no. I am sure some disagree but the US has not "imposed" its own way of being as Rome did!
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Copenhagen is a joke. As for commercial empires. No country on the planet can survive on its own resources anymore! Therefore a world market is in the interests of the world. As it stands our greatest export is capital goods and greatest import is industrial supplies!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
But don't you remember that the current Speaker promised us the "most ethical Congress ever" when she took up the gavel. And the President promised an end to business as usual in Washington and his administration would be the most transparent ever?
I guess that is why the bills presented are over 2000 pages and multiple versions, so they can be transparent. And that is the same reason the bills are crafted out of the view of the public (and the minority as well). Then there all the time limits, usually less time than it would take to read the bill, for passage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel1sh
In reality, short of giving everyone the exact same amount of money, it is impossible to eliminate poverty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Actually the Federal Government has no right to exercise control over the States. The powers of the Feds is strictly limited, something the Feds have forgotten, or choose to ignore. All other powers remain in the perview of the States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Having included the Cold War then that count would have to be three. You forgot to include WW1
Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
So was California! And the right retained by Texas is the right to subdivide into, I believe, a total of five smaller states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skp2bear
You mean the US educational system has not yet been destroyed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne