Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 18:29 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:28:19 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> When they talk about capitalism, it isn't our definition and >> >> we get in fights. What seems even odder, Europeans call >> >> the thingie we call socialism, capitalism. I haven't explored >> >> this further. So add a grain of salt. >> > >> >There is no such confusion other than in your interpretation of the meanings of >> >the word. There is no socialist party in the USA btw. >> >> --- >> What's this, then? >> >> http://sp-usa.org/ > >Do they have any elected representatives ? --- That's a different question. Do you concede that there is a US Socialist Party? -- JF
From: T Wake on 26 Nov 2006 18:34 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:456A2271.94CBC0CD(a)hotmail.com... > > > John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >John Fields wrote: >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >Well, the Monarch has largely devolved the Royal Prerogative to the >> >> >government of the day and I think the last time the Monarch did >> >> >anything of >> >> >a "power" line was a one off in the 1830s. >> >> >> >> --- >> >> Sorry, no. Australia 1975, Grenada 1983, Solomon Islands 1994. >> > >> >That wasn't the Monarch. >> >> --- >> From: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy >> >> "Unlike some of their continental European counterparts, the >> Westminster monarch and her representatives retain significant >> "reserve" or "prerogative" powers, to be wielded only in times of >> extreme emergency or constitutional crises (e.g., Australia 1975, >> Grenada 1983, Solomon Islands 1994)" > > Note " and her representatives ", meaning the UK government. Yes, in the examples cited the government of the day made the decision. >> >> >The Monarch is a constitutional rule and as such, subject to the >> >> >decisions >> >> >made by the Prime Minister and the cabinet. >> >> >> >> --- >> >> More properly, you live in a representative democracy which is a >> >> Constitutional Monarchy with a hereditary Monarch who is the Head of >> >> State. >> > >> >Titular Head of State. >> >> --- >> Nope, the babe's got some real clout if she has to use it. See the >> wikipedia link. > > I dare say if it came to it, our armed forces would be loyal to the Crown > rather > than the Government of the day. One of the strengths of this system. Interesting one, as the oath of allegiance is to the Queen not the government. However, I would be amazed to see the armed forces go against parliamentary decisions. Rather than the generic Wiki link posted previously, this may give a better understanding for those colonial cousins of ours who seem to think it is still the Middle Ages and the feudal system is still in place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Monarchy The powers of the monarchy, known as the Royal Prerogative, are still very extensive. Most prerogative powers are exercised not by the monarch personally, but by ministers acting on his or her behalf; examples such as the power to regulate the civil service and the power to issue passports. Some major powers are exercised nominally by the monarch herself, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and according to constitutional convention. An example is the power to dissolve Parliament. According to a parliamentary report,[1] "The Crown cannot invent new prerogative powers". -- The important bits in the above includes "ministers acting his or her behalf." -- It has long been established in the uncodified Constitution of the United Kingdom that political power is ultimately exercised by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, of which the Sovereign is a non-partisan component, along with the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and by the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Thus, as the modern British monarchy is a constitutional one, the Sovereign's role is in practice limited to non-partisan functions (such as being the fount of honour). This role has been recognised since the 19th century; Walter Bagehot identified the monarchy as the "dignified part" rather than the "efficient part" of government in The English Constitution (1867). -- Also from further down the page: -- As the British monarchy is a constitutional one, however, the monarch exercises the Royal Prerogative on the advice of ministers. -- The Monarch doesn't even get to choose who is appointed Archbishop of the Church of England. It may be a shock to those Americans seeking strawmen arguments, but the UK is not "used to obeying a Monarch," we do not absolve decisions to authority easily, we are not a feudal nation, we are not a "real" Monarchy in the normal sense of the term and we certainly are not socialist.
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 18:46 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:34:29 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >John Fields wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: >> >> >> Don Bowey wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Oregon has it's own medical plan. >> >> >> >> >> >> And a fine job they do, letting their mental patients run free to >> >> >> make threatening phone calls to people. One has lost multiple ISP >> >> >> accounts for threatening people online, been bared from the local >> >> >> Wal-Mart, and arrested for trying to run over someone, as well. >> >> > >> >> >Under the NHS he would be 'sectioned'. >> >> >> >> --- >> >> From: >> >> >> >> http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sectioned >> >> >> >> sec�tion (skshn) >> >> n. >> >> 1. A cut or division. >> >> 2. The act or process of separating or cutting, especially the >> >> surgical cutting or dividing of tissue. >> >> 3. A thin slice, as of tissue, suitable for microscopic examination. >> >> >> >> v. >> >> 1. To separate or divide into parts. >> >> 2. To cut or divide tissue surgically. >> >> >> >> And you think the US is crude??? >> >> >> >> -- >> >> JF >> > >> >IDIOT. >> > >> --- >> Ah! I got it right! > >No you didn't. --- I wasn't talking about the medical part which, of course, is absurd even for as backward a bunch of yokels as y'all, it was getting you to do the one-word flame reply that I got right! --- >Do you fancy establishing for yourself what it means here or would you like me >to explain it ? --- Sure, go ahead, but I suppose it's close to what we would call a "Section 8." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_%28military%29 -- JF
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 18:50 On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:54:10 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> I left out the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, > >Totally irrelevant. --- Hardly. Those are part of the ugly part of Europe's history. --- >> two world wars that we got dragged into > >You have this continual memory problem about WW2. > >Have you forgotten that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor ? --- It wasn't the war in the Pacific I was talking about. -- JF
From: John Fields on 26 Nov 2006 18:52
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:55:30 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> I see no mention of Crusades, Inquisitions > >WTH have they got to do with anything in the last couple of centuries ? --- See my earlier post. -- JF |