RE: So I was sitting here wondering

RE: So I was sitting here wondering (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/21/2006 12:58:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy While I will admit that I have not read the Magna Carta in 22 years, my understanding of it when I did read it was that King John vested the power of governance, for the most part, in Parlaiment. At the time, this was a government agency made up of all the noblemen he relied on to support his throne. Sinergy Some info Sinergy: The Magna Carta set the founding principles for parliament and constitution. It defined rights, legal practices and what subjects could expect from their monarch and superiors. However, it in no way reduced the power of the monarchy. The first representative assembly was actually 80 years later in 1295 and is deemed to be one of the oldest forms of representative governance in the world. The real key period for change (in terms of Parliamentary ascendancy at the expense of the Monrachy) was in the 17thC. In 1642 King Charles I attempted to arrest 5 leading members of the House of Commons for treason. The speaker of the house voiced his allegiance to Parliament rather than the monarch. The writing was pretty much on the wall in the sense that the monarchy were losing their grip. In 1688 a constitutional monarchy was established in what we term the Glorious Revolution. This limited the power of the monarchy over Parliament and was a key period in paving the way for a democratic society. However, as per my post above, the monarchy still retain unhealthy priviledges.

NorthernGent -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/21/2006 1:02:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adommeforu 1. Why are the British so worried or concerned or whatever about Americans being armed with personal weapons? A: Because they cannot control the crime they have and to add the extra "wepons" stat to the mix [and this is the desire, to be as free to bear arms as the USA] would throw the UK into chaos. 2. Why are the British so worried or concerned or whatever about American politics? A: Because it distracts them from their own woes. 3. Why aren't the British so worried or concerned or whatever about thier own problems? A: Because it is easier to shake a finger at others than to pay attention to their own problems [and lets face it, there are enough of them]. 4. Why aren't the British so worried or concerned or whatever about the loss of power of their Queen? A: The Monarchy have not had any power for centuries, so there is no need to consider this point. Anyone got any ideas? Dear God, are you serious or simply taking the piss out of the original post?

NorthernGent -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/21/2006 1:05:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OeldeWolf I think that the reason the Brits (and half of the people out there trying to muck up our country like the aussies) OeldeWolf You need to relax a bit and keep paranoia at bay. Furthermore, why do the Brits or Aussies need to "muck up" your country when your current regime is doing a grand job of it?

adommeforu -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/21/2006 1:17:26 AM)
Dear God, are you serious or simply taking the piss out of the original post? Just thought that this thread had become a llittle too serious and threw My Own thoughts in. Nowhere did it say that humour could not be added to the posts!

NorthernGent -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/21/2006 1:25:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adommeforu Dear God, are you serious or simply taking the piss out of the original post? Just thought that this thread had become a llittle too serious and threw My Own thoughts in. Nowhere did it say that humour could not be added to the posts! True enough. I have no problem with humour. In fact, I actively encourage it on threads involving the queen - if we laugh at them for long enough they may just get the message. I just couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or serious (intention unclear in type).

adommeforu -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/21/2006 1:28:44 AM)
Wheres your tone was perfectly clear!

Arpig -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/21/2006 1:36:07 AM)
I don't understand the connection between the ability to persuade the US to nuke somebody and what I said. And no you did not misread my post, but I am afraid I am missing how that is related to the idea of being able to persuade the US to nuke the bejeezuz out of jamaica....

Arpig -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/21/2006 1:40:08 AM)
quote: So what happens when on country disagrees with another? How do you decide who will win? Go ask the Queen? No, we do what any civilised country does, we negotiate with them. And in really critical matters we occaisionally pull out our ultimate secret weapon: "Don't push us too far, we are in really tight with the US".......its akin to a grade schooler having a high school jock for a brother [;)]

NorthernGent -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/21/2006 2:01:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: adommeforu Wheres your tone was perfectly clear! Thanks very much!

Dtesmoac -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/21/2006 6:04:10 AM)
Was reading an article on the BBC page yesterday, and this year the UK was the country that had the greatest inward foreign investment of any country - view this as incoming cash flow. Even more than China and the US. This is partly because the UK has some of the easiest regulations when it comes o having British companies taken over by foreign businesses. The UK was also the thrid largest invester in other countries globally. The UK tends to be a far more "international" economy than many others with a higher proportion of its wealth generated by "adding value" to imported items and then risking capital in overeas ventures. Rather than creating something at home which is expensive and that you can only add a small % to for profit. Of particular interest is that when the UK did not join the Euro it was predicted that inward investment would plumit. Of course there is the question of why do the UK public not seem to be concerned that many companies are sold to "overseas" investers where as in the US there is an under tone of not wanting foreigners to own US businesses? France often viewed as insular was the worlds largest outward investor in the world last year a spot historically held by the US.

Sinergy -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/21/2006 3:56:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig Sorry Sinergy, but you most assuredly are wrong in this case. 5. It is not the Commader-in-Chief (the Queen) who has the power to go to war in Canada, it is the elected representatives of the people who have that power. One more time. I did not say anything about declaring war. I once had CINC Canada wander through the room I was working in in NORAD (Cheyenne Mountain). The President (vice President if he is not found) and CINC NORAD have one button ability to push the big red let the nukes fly button. All the other CINCs require 2 people pushing the big red button to unleash hell on the "enemy." My point was that the CINC Canada and CINC PAC (or wherever) can fire nukes at Jamaica, whether or not the Canadian Parlaiment declared war on those Rastafarian dope smoking heathens. I never intended to imply that Queen Liz can make Canada do anything, apart from have her on your money. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

Arpig -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/21/2006 9:13:13 PM)
Ah, I understand your point now. Sorry i was just a little denser than usual i guess

Sinergy -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/21/2006 9:19:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig I don't understand the connection between the ability to persuade the US to nuke somebody and what I said. And no you did not misread my post, but I am afraid I am missing how that is related to the idea of being able to persuade the US to nuke the bejeezuz out of jamaica.... It was a joke, Arpig. Canada and one other Commander In Chief could, theoretically, nuke Jamaica. That is the way our combined nuclear forces are designed. The odds that Jamaica would EVER do anything worth nuking them for is simply ludicrous. Just me, could be wrong, but there you go. Sinergy

Fitznicely -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/22/2006 2:56:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey 1. Why are the British so worried or concerned or whatever about Americans being armed with personal weapons? We're not. We're worried that our government might have the same stupid idea. quote: 2. Why are the British so worried or concerned or whatever about American politics? Probably the same reason Americans are. You're being ruled by a megalomaniacal fuckwit. quote: 3. Why aren't the British so worried or concerned or whatever about thier own problems? We are, it's just that Americans only take notice when it's about them. quote: 4. Why aren't the British so worried or concerned or whatever about the loss of power of their Queen? Why worry about something that's been happening for 300 years? (Slightly deliberate baiting, not entirely serious, wishing I didn't have to add this disclaimer) Thankyouverymuch.

LadyEllen -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/22/2006 3:17:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey 1. Why are the British so worried or concerned or whatever about Americans being armed with personal weapons? What goes on in the colonies is always of interest. quote: 2. Why are the British so worried or concerned or whatever about American politics? We're looking for an opportunity to reverse the Revolution, so we keep an eye on things to spot any weaknesses that could be exploited. quote: 3. Why aren't the British so worried or concerned or whatever about thier own problems? Our only problems derive from the loss of the colonies now known as the illegally established USA quote: 4. Why aren't the British so worried or concerned or whatever about the loss of power of their Queen? Because our main problem is the loss of duty on tea imported to our colonies due to an insurrection. well, someone said humour was permitted..... E

KenDckey -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/22/2006 5:02:03 AM)
Oh Ellen you just want to tax us more than we already are LOL What you trying to do use our taxes to reduce your? LOL

philosophy -> RE: So I was sitting here wondering (10/23/2006 10:49:46 AM)
"So what happens when on country disagrees with another? How do you decide who will win? Go ask the Queen?" ...seems to me that some of our colonial cousins have some confusion over the concept of 'head of state' and how that is applied in other countries. In the US the head of state is the president, an elected position with a fair bit of temporal power, theoretically balanced by the senate and congress. In the UK the head of state is the Queen, an hereditary position with very little if any temporal power. The actual government is done by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The commons is wholly elected, and the Lords is in the midst of reform It used to consist of Lords, Bishops, experts in law and a few others appointed by the ruling party in the commons. This is slowly changing, but not fast enough for many of us. There is, however, the parliament act which allows in certain circumstances the Commons to dispense with the assent of the Lords when making law. Commonwealth countries usually also have the Queen as head of state, but like the UK this is largely a ceremonial role. Hope this helps.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.320313E-02