<!--QuoteBegin-Geminosity+Sep 30 2004, 06:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Sep 30 2004, 06:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then maybe it's about time you broke away from the norm... after all it's things like that, that give America an extremely bad name =3 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> wrong, im not american =/
lol I knew you'd say that... but I posted it anyway for some reason. Go me!!! XD
Either way I'm sure you realise that by being less than considerate about other's countries, especially in such a silly way, that people will think you're from the USA anyway though ^~
<!--QuoteBegin-MR.JEBURTO+Sep 30 2004, 01:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MR.JEBURTO @ Sep 30 2004, 01:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> England does not rule Ireland. We rule Northern Ireland and Walse (sp?).
Scotland has the power to pass its own laws but is still part of the UK <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it's "Wales". Both Northern Ireland and Wales have their own pseudo-parliaments, and "rule" is loosely used.
The Queen has more power than any other figgure head in the developed world. (Apparently.)
No-one has really said how British Government works yet. I'm too tired and ill-informed to fulfil that role either though. It's got nothing to do with the monarchy, that's for sure. The Queen HAs powers, but never uses them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Ice-Phoenix+Sep 23 2004, 11:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ice-Phoenix @ Sep 23 2004, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ok i am excepting the fact alot of you are american and otherplaces and frankly dont give a c*** but i thought i'd make this serious topic!
What exactly is the point of our monarchy i mean ok back in the old days it was good it inspired people and people fought for queen and country, but nowadays theres no need for it i mean honestly all the royal family do is just sit around all day doing jack s*** and stealing hard earned money.. its ridiculous as its the goverment that does all the work... and tony blair is a idiot so if england are to survive then we need to sort-out our goverment and monarchy..if there should be one.
also i find americans patriotic and that they inspire me more then my own country. americans have sense of pride for there country that no other has and that is inspiring <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree, Phoenix. The British monarchy is the one thing standing in the way of the country being a true and complete democracy. I'd call it an obstruction. The royals get tax money just for being born into the family. Is that fair? What a waste. By the way, I used to live in America and now I live in England, and I do care.
well i ment no offence i just said it because alot of americans probably dont care as they live in america. I do think the queen has use's but just being born into the royal family, its cheap, hopefully they'll run out of heirs and the royal family will just die off... hopefully, i mean i dont have any bad thoughts about them except they take our money, we work they get our money but they dont have to work o.0 thats abit harsh aint it?? honestly if the roles were reversed then i think the queen would be abit pi**ed off if we were taking her hard earned money, and its like the more you earn the more they take... why do they need all that money?!?!?
<!--QuoteBegin-cannon_fodder1990+Oct 2 2004, 06:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cannon_fodder1990 @ Oct 2 2004, 06:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Ice-Phoenix+Sep 23 2004, 11:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ice-Phoenix @ Sep 23 2004, 11:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ok i am excepting the fact alot of you are american and otherplaces and frankly dont give a c*** but i thought i'd make this serious topic!
What exactly is the point of our monarchy i mean ok back in the old days it was good it inspired people and people fought for queen and country, but nowadays theres no need for it i mean honestly all the royal family do is just sit around all day doing jack s*** and stealing hard earned money.. its ridiculous as its the goverment that does all the work... and tony blair is a idiot so if england are to survive then we need to sort-out our goverment and monarchy..if there should be one.
also i find americans patriotic and that they inspire me more then my own country. americans have sense of pride for there country that no other has and that is inspiring <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree, Phoenix. The British monarchy is the one thing standing in the way of the country being a true and complete democracy. I'd call it an obstruction. The royals get tax money just for being born into the family. Is that fair? What a waste. By the way, I used to live in America and now I live in England, and I do care. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Precisely.
I don't care how much money she brings into the country each year, it's not fair.
Just becuase they're born into that despicable family they get everything for them, without them doing anything to earn it. You cannot call yourself a democracy when you have such ridiculous hereditary rights still in place.
In centuries gone by there was a place for a monarchy. Now there most certainly isn't.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim+Oct 2 2004, 07:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim @ Oct 2 2004, 07:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Even if you removed the monarchy, we would still not be a -true- democracy as you see it, the house of lords is still heredetary. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> yeah, but the house of lords can be overruled by commons, e.g g-ay sex age of concent and more recently the fox hunting ban. So the house of lords, can only really slow things down.
The point I was making was that cannon-fodder's view of democracy is skewed since the royals do nothing to detract from the democracy of our country, similar to the house of lords <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim+Oct 2 2004, 07:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim @ Oct 2 2004, 07:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The point I was making was that cannon-fodder's view of democracy is skewed since the royals do nothing to detract from the democracy of our country, similar to the house of lords <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> yeah, i agree, we are a complete democracy. The royals are just there to get money from tourisim and provide scandal for the tabloid press. Oh, and of course, tradition. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim+Oct 2 2004, 07:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim @ Oct 2 2004, 07:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The point I was making was that cannon-fodder's view of democracy is skewed since the royals do nothing to detract from the democracy of our country, similar to the house of lords <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, they do. Did you know the Queen has the power to veto ANYTHING? Now, it's not like she would (it would be political suicide). However, it's not good to put a "destroy entire universe" button in front of someone who <i>probably</i> wouldn't use it, they just should'nt have the power. Same could be said for the Queen, she shouldn't have any power. She wasn't elected, therfore it's not a true democracy.
Like I said before that acts as a safeguard against renegade governments, nothing more nothing less. If I understand the American system correctly it's all based on 3 different entities which safeguard against the other having too much power, which isn't really all that different it's just all down on paper.
Would I be right in saying (at least this is how I understand it) that the supreme court is made up of members appointed by the president? Surely that is less democratic than hereditary election since the president could choose to fill it with people who would just agree with him?
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim+Oct 2 2004, 03:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim @ Oct 2 2004, 03:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Would I be right in saying (at least this is how I understand it) that the supreme court is made up of members appointed by the president? Surely that is less democratic than hereditary election since the president could choose to fill it with people who would just agree with him? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> thats how it used to work but not being an American im not sure if thats been changed
Not exactly, the members of the Supreme Court are nominated by the President, but the descision is not final. The Senate has to vote them in. Also, it I still more democratic (in my opinion, anyway) to have leaders appointed by an elected official than leaders who are completely unelected.
but the president represents the people (or at least the majority of the people), and thus, even if he is appointing people who agree with him, by extension he is appointing people who agree with the majority of the country, I would suppose.
Jim pointed out that the Queen safeguards against renegade government, but in that case, "Who polices the police?". The queen is seperate from the nations politics, so she doesn't exactly have to worry about the next election.
I can see your point, but is it seriously likely to happen? The royals are wetter than a fillet of haddock <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Besides we English don't cope well with radical change, as I think someone else pointed out <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Looking at the history of the UK, change has been very modest (glorious revolution). I believe the last "Drastic change" in the UK occurred about a decade and a half ago with Margaret Thatcher privatizing everything. As you can imagine, it wasn't met with much enthusiasm with many of the Unions and socialist. while in France for example, change has been very abrupt and in my opinion very incoherent <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> . France in the past 50 years has had 5 different governments drafting 5 different constitutions! <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Oct 4 2004, 02:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Oct 4 2004, 02:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Looking at the history of the UK, change has been very modest (glorious revolution). I believe the last "Drastic change" in the UK occurred about a decade and a half ago with Margaret Thatcher privatizing everything. As you can imagine, it wasn't met with much enthusiasm with many of the Unions and socialist. while in France for example, change has been very abrupt and in my opinion very incoherent <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> . France in the past 50 years has had 5 different governments drafting 5 different constitutions! <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Isn't it amazing?
You have the most conservative nation next to the most... "un"-conservative nation on earth, both right next to each other!
Funny how the more conservative one has ultimately become more powerful (go conservatives!) (NOTE: Not american conservatives before anyone asks, I'm talking euro conservatives)
<!--QuoteBegin-marce+Oct 2 2004, 10:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (marce @ Oct 2 2004, 10:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Jim pointed out that the Queen safeguards against renegade government, but in that case, "Who polices the police?". The queen is seperate from the nations politics, so she doesn't exactly have to worry about the next election. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I disagree. The Queen has nominal powers only. As I said before, if a monarch in the today's context tried to use said powers against the will of the incumbant government, parliament would simply take said powers off her. Parliament in Britain have stripped the monarch of powers before, and I'm sure they would do it again. Besides, the monarch would immediately be rejected by the people by using these powers, and would immediately be a threat to the continuation of the monarchy. Sensible monarchs stay out of politics.
A renegade government as you say wouldn't survive in modern day British politics. The closest we got was Margaret Thatcher and her decimation of the unions, the NHS and schools. Blair may not be perfect (and he's nominally a socialist btw Forlorn), but his government have at least invested in the NHS and education to reverse the years, nay, decades, of neglect.
I would consider myself a socialist as opposed to a conservative. I couldn't bring myself to vote for the British Conservative party because their core mandate goes against what I believe a government should be. I prefer the redistribution of wealth via socialist policies. There is always a danger of creating a largely forgotten underclass with conservatism whilst focussing on the build up of wealth of the middle and upper classes.
<!--QuoteBegin-Beretta+Sep 23 2004, 12:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Beretta @ Sep 23 2004, 12:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The reason the monarchy is good is because it makes us unique, its something about being British, name another country with a monarchy and a democratically elected leader, its cool <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I love it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And no offence to the USA, but personally having a flag on your house doesnt say anything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thailand
I'm gonna assume UK's monarchy is more or less of a tradition and tourism boost. But for this country, monarchy is highly revered and for great reasons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->?In any country, there are some people who are good, and others who are not so good. It is impossible to make everyone good. The task of bringing peace and happiness to the country is not about making everyone good. But it is about promoting good people, enabling them to govern the country, and about preventing people who are not so good from obtaining positions of power.?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forlorn- what country exaclty are you referring to? Anyway, I hate conservatives because they care little for the welfare of the lower and middle classes (i.e. the bulk of the population). Quality of life matters much more than power in my opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Quality of life matters much more than power in my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quality of life comes from wealth generation (aka progress), and the establisment of a safety net, not massive income redistrubution.
<!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Oct 8 2004, 02:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Oct 8 2004, 02:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Quality of life matters much more than power in my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quality of life comes from wealth generation (aka progress), and the establisment of a safety net, not massive income redistrubution. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That depends on your definition of quality of life. Quality of life is not merely based on wealth or progress. Anyway, cannon fodder mentioned only that conservatives show some disregard for the lower classes, not massive income redistribution. He was only expressing his opinion, or actually his preference for quality of life over having "power" (whatever type of power he was talking about).
I think if I extrapolate that into the sense of a country; Canada and Australia have a better quality of life than America, but the USA has more "power" on the world stage.
Standard of living is more based around money, usually based around the 'real' income of the people. Quality of life takes into account more subjective things like ready access to more cultural things.
(the UN-HDI [united nations human development index] measures stuff like poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, etc. It is a standard means of measuring 'well-being')
ps Everyone needs to stop with the outrageous, gross generalisations. Everyone.
<!--QuoteBegin-marce+Oct 8 2004, 03:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (marce @ Oct 8 2004, 03:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Oct 8 2004, 02:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Oct 8 2004, 02:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Quality of life matters much more than power in my opinion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quality of life comes from wealth generation (aka progress), and the establisment of a safety net, not massive income redistrubution. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That depends on your definition of quality of life. Quality of life is not merely based on wealth or progress. Anyway, cannon fodder mentioned only that conservatives show some disregard for the lower classes, not massive income redistribution. He was only expressing his opinion, or actually his preference for quality of life over having "power" (whatever type of power he was talking about).
I think if I extrapolate that into the sense of a country; Canada and Australia have a better quality of life than America, but the USA has more "power" on the world stage.
Standard of living is more based around money, usually based around the 'real' income of the people. Quality of life takes into account more subjective things like ready access to more cultural things.
(the UN-HDI [united nations human development index] measures stuff like poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, etc. It is a standard means of measuring 'well-being')
ps Everyone needs to stop with the outrageous, gross generalisations. Everyone. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Gross generalizations? You could take some of your own advice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think if I extrapolate that into the sense of a country; Canada and Australia have a better quality of life than America, but the USA has more "power" on the world stage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry but America has the best standards of living in the world. Not only do we have just as much political and civil freedoms as do canada and austrilia, but we also destroy them in terms of economic power for our citizens.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sorry but America has the best standards of living in the world. Not only do we have just as much political and civil freedoms as do canada and austrilia, but we also destroy them in terms of economic power for our citizens. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your economy is effective as it is completely liberated. However, this tends to hit the "underlings" in your country.
Also, you have not much in terms of welfare. If someone is not able to work or take measures for his pension, he can shoot himself on the spot.
As for the political, and civil freedom...? patriot act? anybody?
Its not actually a sign of freedom when the intelligence agencies are legally allowed to check your Internet logs, the books you read in the library, listen to your phonecalls with nothing more than "be under suspicion", or is allowed to arrest you without formal charges....
Comments
wrong, im not american =/
Either way I'm sure you realise that by being less than considerate about other's countries, especially in such a silly way, that people will think you're from the USA anyway though ^~
but i guess you're right. (about the usa part)
Scotland has the power to pass its own laws but is still part of the UK <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's "Wales".
Both Northern Ireland and Wales have their own pseudo-parliaments, and "rule" is loosely used.
The Queen has more power than any other figgure head in the developed world. (Apparently.)
No-one has really said how British Government works yet. I'm too tired and ill-informed to fulfil that role either though. It's got nothing to do with the monarchy, that's for sure. The Queen HAs powers, but never uses them.
What exactly is the point of our monarchy i mean ok back in the old days it was good it inspired people and people fought for queen and country, but nowadays theres no need for it i mean honestly all the royal family do is just sit around all day doing jack s*** and stealing hard earned money.. its ridiculous as its the goverment that does all the work... and tony blair is a idiot so if england are to survive then we need to sort-out our goverment and monarchy..if there should be one.
also i find americans patriotic and that they inspire me more then my own country.
americans have sense of pride for there country that no other has and that is inspiring <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, Phoenix. The British monarchy is the one thing standing in the way of the country being a true and complete democracy. I'd call it an obstruction. The royals get tax money just for being born into the family. Is that fair? What a waste. By the way, I used to live in America and now I live in England, and I do care.
What exactly is the point of our monarchy i mean ok back in the old days it was good it inspired people and people fought for queen and country, but nowadays theres no need for it i mean honestly all the royal family do is just sit around all day doing jack s*** and stealing hard earned money.. its ridiculous as its the goverment that does all the work... and tony blair is a idiot so if england are to survive then we need to sort-out our goverment and monarchy..if there should be one.
also i find americans patriotic and that they inspire me more then my own country.
americans have sense of pride for there country that no other has and that is inspiring <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, Phoenix. The British monarchy is the one thing standing in the way of the country being a true and complete democracy. I'd call it an obstruction. The royals get tax money just for being born into the family. Is that fair? What a waste. By the way, I used to live in America and now I live in England, and I do care. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Precisely.
I don't care how much money she brings into the country each year, it's not fair.
Just becuase they're born into that despicable family they get everything for them, without them doing anything to earn it. You cannot call yourself a democracy when you have such ridiculous hereditary rights still in place.
In centuries gone by there was a place for a monarchy. Now there most certainly isn't.
yeah, but the house of lords can be overruled by commons, e.g g-ay sex age of concent and more recently the fox hunting ban. So the house of lords, can only really slow things down.
yeah, i agree, we are a complete democracy. The royals are just there to get money from tourisim and provide scandal for the tabloid press. Oh, and of course, tradition. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yes, they do. Did you know the Queen has the power to veto ANYTHING? Now, it's not like she would (it would be political suicide). However, it's not good to put a "destroy entire universe" button in front of someone who <i>probably</i> wouldn't use it, they just should'nt have the power. Same could be said for the Queen, she shouldn't have any power. She wasn't elected, therfore it's not a true democracy.
thats how it used to work but not being an American im not sure if thats been changed
but the president represents the people (or at least the majority of the people), and thus, even if he is appointing people who agree with him, by extension he is appointing people who agree with the majority of the country, I would suppose.
Jim pointed out that the Queen safeguards against renegade government, but in that case, "Who polices the police?". The queen is seperate from the nations politics, so she doesn't exactly have to worry about the next election.
Besides we English don't cope well with radical change, as I think someone else pointed out <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Isn't it amazing?
You have the most conservative nation next to the most... "un"-conservative nation on earth, both right next to each other!
Funny how the more conservative one has ultimately become more powerful (go conservatives!) (NOTE: Not american conservatives before anyone asks, I'm talking euro conservatives)
I disagree. The Queen has nominal powers only. As I said before, if a monarch in the today's context tried to use said powers against the will of the incumbant government, parliament would simply take said powers off her. Parliament in Britain have stripped the monarch of powers before, and I'm sure they would do it again. Besides, the monarch would immediately be rejected by the people by using these powers, and would immediately be a threat to the continuation of the monarchy. Sensible monarchs stay out of politics.
A renegade government as you say wouldn't survive in modern day British politics. The closest we got was Margaret Thatcher and her decimation of the unions, the NHS and schools. Blair may not be perfect (and he's nominally a socialist btw Forlorn), but his government have at least invested in the NHS and education to reverse the years, nay, decades, of neglect.
I would consider myself a socialist as opposed to a conservative. I couldn't bring myself to vote for the British Conservative party because their core mandate goes against what I believe a government should be. I prefer the redistribution of wealth via socialist policies. There is always a danger of creating a largely forgotten underclass with conservatism whilst focussing on the build up of wealth of the middle and upper classes.
I love it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
And no offence to the USA, but personally having a flag on your house doesnt say anything. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thailand
<a href='http://www.bangkokpost.net/king/home.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.bangkokpost.net/king/home.htm</a>
I'm gonna assume UK's monarchy is more or less of a tradition and tourism boost. But for this country, monarchy is highly revered and for great reasons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->?In any country, there are some people who are good, and others who are not so good.
It is impossible to make everyone good. The task of bringing peace and happiness to
the country is not about making everyone good. But it is about promoting good people,
enabling them to govern the country, and about preventing people who are not so good
from obtaining positions of power.?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quality of life comes from wealth generation (aka progress), and the establisment of a safety net, not massive income redistrubution.
Quality of life comes from wealth generation (aka progress), and the establisment of a safety net, not massive income redistrubution. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That depends on your definition of quality of life. Quality of life is not merely based on wealth or progress. Anyway, cannon fodder mentioned only that conservatives show some disregard for the lower classes, not massive income redistribution. He was only expressing his opinion, or actually his preference for quality of life over having "power" (whatever type of power he was talking about).
I think if I extrapolate that into the sense of a country; Canada and Australia have a better quality of life than America, but the USA has more "power" on the world stage.
Standard of living is more based around money, usually based around the 'real' income of the people. Quality of life takes into account more subjective things like ready access to more cultural things.
(the UN-HDI [united nations human development index] measures stuff like poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, etc. It is a standard means of measuring 'well-being')
ps
Everyone needs to stop with the outrageous, gross generalisations. Everyone.
Quality of life comes from wealth generation (aka progress), and the establisment of a safety net, not massive income redistrubution. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That depends on your definition of quality of life. Quality of life is not merely based on wealth or progress. Anyway, cannon fodder mentioned only that conservatives show some disregard for the lower classes, not massive income redistribution. He was only expressing his opinion, or actually his preference for quality of life over having "power" (whatever type of power he was talking about).
I think if I extrapolate that into the sense of a country; Canada and Australia have a better quality of life than America, but the USA has more "power" on the world stage.
Standard of living is more based around money, usually based around the 'real' income of the people. Quality of life takes into account more subjective things like ready access to more cultural things.
(the UN-HDI [united nations human development index] measures stuff like poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, etc. It is a standard means of measuring 'well-being')
ps
Everyone needs to stop with the outrageous, gross generalisations. Everyone. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gross generalizations? You could take some of your own advice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think if I extrapolate that into the sense of a country; Canada and Australia have a better quality of life than America, but the USA has more "power" on the world stage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/dem_civ_and_pol_lib' target='_blank'>http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/dem_civ_and_pol_lib</a>
Sorry but America has the best standards of living in the world. Not only do we have just as much political and civil freedoms as do canada and austrilia, but we also destroy them in terms of economic power for our citizens.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your economy is effective as it is completely liberated. However, this tends to hit the "underlings" in your country.
Also, you have not much in terms of welfare. If someone is not able to work or take measures for his pension, he can shoot himself on the spot.
As for the political, and civil freedom...? patriot act? anybody?
Its not actually a sign of freedom when the intelligence agencies are legally allowed to check your Internet logs, the books you read in the library, listen to your phonecalls with nothing more than "be under suspicion", or is allowed to arrest you without formal charges....