💩 Shit I just heard in my office
-
Just as a pro-tip, we're right at the 100th anniversary of a major global war started by a bunch of countries with monarchies.
I don't know about the other European countries, but I do know that our actions in the two World Wars were both authorised by Parliament, not by the monarch; our monarchs hold no political power to speak of.
-
I don't know about the other European countries, but I do know that our actions in the two World Wars were both authorised by Parliament, not by the monarch; our monarchs hold no political power to speak of.
Correct, but the Sultan of Ottoman Turkey, the Tsar of Russia, King of Italy, etc. started the war. That was my point.
-
This is what the anti-royal campaigners always forget: we as a country earn so much more through tourism than we'd save by getting rid of them.
Well, you know, countries' sources of income can change over time. It's entirely possible you guys could find something else. Shit, you could keep 'em on as a purely symbolic thing probably and still get the tourism bucks.
I don't think I'd be happy living somewhere where I'm a subject, not a citizen.
There's an old apocryphal story about an Englishman riding into an American village a couple hundred years ago, and when he sees someone, he says "you there, fetch me your master", and the American replies "That son of a bitch ain't been born." Presumably he would've said it in the proper idiom of the time.
-
-
Shit, you could keep 'em on as a purely symbolic thing probably and still get the tourism bucks.
That's essentially what we do now!
@FrostCat said:I don't think I'd be happy living somewhere where I'm a subject, not a citizen.
In the UK, there's no appreciable difference
-
Who should I believe, you or blakeyrat as to the source of my idiocy?
Did it occur to you that it's possible they could both be right.
-
In Dutch law, the ruling monarch is indicated as King, regardless of the gender of the incumbent.
You sexist pigs (who are probably also cisnormative) should fix that!
etc
-
Waco is about the biggest debacle you can pin on a specific President I can think of also. I mean, it's possible Iran-contra killed more people but we don't have any specific data on that as far as I know.
Last I heard, I believe Fast and Furious killed one US Border Patrol agent and possibly as many as 300 Mexican citizens (in Mexico). So if we just want to go by body count...
-
In the UK, there's no appreciable difference
You do not have a written Constitution or equivalent, though, correct? (Magna Carta excepted.) That means some things that we would consider rights, AIUI, could be taken away under a much lower hurdle than in the US. People forget about it now because nobody's doing it, but the Third Amendment was put on the Bill of Rights because that particular instances of George's long train of abuses and usurpations rightly infuriated a lot of people.
-
You do not have a written Constitution or equivalent, though, correct?
AIUI, that is correct. However, we are also subject to the EU's Human Rights laws (which will have been ratified by Westminster), so those rights that are protected in the US by the various Amendments are protected to a similar extent in the UK by EU law.
-
And the powerful EU military.
-
AIUI, that is correct. However, we are also subject to the EU's Human Rights laws (which will have been ratified by Westminster), so those rights that are protected in the US by the various Amendments are protected to a similar extent in the UK by EU law.
What would it take to change such a right? Ignoring for the purpose of discussion the fact that US governments at all levels regularly infringe on rights that "shall not be infringed", the hurdle to removing such a right is quite high in the US.
-
And the powerful EU military.
Was that what you intended? Because if so, I'll take my
-
Maybe he's implying that that's a picture of the whole thing.
-
Was that what you intended?
Is the thing I composed and posted what I intended to post? Yes. Is that what you're asking? Because, if so, the answer is always "yes" and you can stop wasting both our time.
-
What would it take to change such a right?
And are they worth much to begin with? The "expression" stuff is full of giant holes.
-
Because, if so, the answer is always "yes" and you can stop wasting both our time.
LIES.
I have reliable sources who say that WP8 has thwarted you on occasion.
-
It has to be so they can fit Germany's anti-Nazi laws somehow into a freedom of speech right.
-
I'm not sure which exception they use to justify that, but stuff like "protection of health or morals" or "protection of the reputation or the rights of others" could probably be used to silence just about anything.
-
What would it take to change such a right? Ignoring for the purpose of discussion the fact that US governments at all levels regularly infringe on rights that "shall not be infringed", the hurdle to removing such a right is quite high in the US.
The barrier's not exactly low in the EU or the UK eitherHaving said that, our Parliament does have the concept of the 'vote whip', where a party's Chief Whip can essentially coerce his/her party's members to vote the same way. I'm not sure if the EU Parliament has the same thing, but there, there's so many parties involved, it wouldn't have a lot of effect anyway.
-
Is the thing I composed and posted what I intended to post? Yes. Is that what you're asking? Because, if so, the answer is always "yes" and you can stop wasting both our time.
You intended to post what looks like a download failure? Ok. Here I was giving you too much credit, because I was assuming you had a better picture, like "the entire EU military? You mean this? " kind of thing.
Your browser download failure picture doesn't make any sense. Please explain what it means.
-
The barrier's not exactly low in the EU or the UK either
I realize there's no direct parallel, but don't forget in the US, the barrier is "pass a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, the President doesn't veto, and then also pass in 2/3 of the states."
-
Having said that, our Parliament does have the concept of the 'vote whip', where a party's Chief Whip can essentially coerce his/her party's members to vote the same way.
Like...a formal mechanism that makes them vote or just the usual political dealing / threatening?
-
What would it take to change such a right? Ignoring for the purpose of discussion the fact that US governments at all levels regularly infringe on rights that "shall not be infringed"
The bolded part is how rights are changed here in practice.
-
You intended to post what looks like a download failure?
So you blame me for Discourse being broken? Is that what your gibberish is about?
-
In the UK, it's:
- Majority vote in the Commons (of those MPs present only*)
- Majority vote in the Lords (of those Lords present only*)
- Monarch signs it into law
*There has to be enough to form a quorum though
Theoretically, the monarch can veto the law. However, it's pretty certain that the first time that is attempted, the monarchy will be dissolved, one way or another.
-
I realize there's no direct parallel, but don't forget in the US, the barrier is "pass a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, the President doesn't veto, and then also pass in 2/3 of the states."
If someone attempted to repeal anything in the original Bill of Rights (even the troublesome 2nd), I can guarantee they'd be universal riots in every city in the nation long before it got any one of those steps finished.
... but yes it is technically possible.
-
Like...a formal mechanism that makes them vote or just the usual political dealing / threatening?
Both:
-
So you blame me for Discourse being broken? Is that what your gibberish is about?
No. I was--foolishly--hoping you'd deign to fix the picture or provide a link to it offsite or something like that. I forgot your desire to stir up trouble outweighs such matters of basic decency.
-
No. I was--foolishly--hoping you'd deign to fix the picture or provide a link to it offsite or something like that. I forgot your desire to stir up trouble outweighs such matters of basic decency.
Obviously it doesn't look broken to me or I would have fixed it. You dumb shit.
I'm still not going to declare it "broken" just on your say-so. I know at least one other person saw it correctly.
-
-
No. I was--foolishly--hoping you'd deign to fix the picture or provide a link to it offsite or something like that. I forgot your desire to stir up trouble outweighs such matters of basic decency.
Looks fine to me…
-
deign to fix the picture or
Oh, is it broken for you? I saw it just fine. I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say.
-
That's terrible.
Our political system has many problems. And none of them are even remotely close to being fixed
-
-
Looks fine to me…
Ah, suddenly it makes more sense. Here's what I saw:
Blakey, you dumb shit, I wouldn't have asked the question if I saw a tank. Is it that you're not smart enough to understand what "looks like a failed download" means, or that you just like stirring shit so much that's your immediate response? Or perhaps both?
-
Is it that you're not smart enough to understand what "looks like a failed download" means, or that you just like stirring shit so much that's your immediate response? Or perhaps both?
Or neither? If you'd posted that after Blakey first questioned what you were seeing, then the whole thing would have been sorted that much quicker.
-
Or neither? If you'd posted that after Blakey first questioned what you were seeing
I did. I hit reply, quote all, and saw the same busted image! When you posted a screenshot it was the first time I knew I didn't see what others did.
Hell, after that, I even went up to his original post, right-clicked the image, opened it in a new tab, and did a force-refresh of the browser. I still see a broken image. I thought it got broke on upload, so I figured he'd see the same thing I did and maybe re-upload the correct one.
But no, as usual, he had to be an asshole.
-
I hit reply, quote all, and saw the same busted image!
And as a result, everyone else saw the image correctly. Had you posted a screenshot…
-
-
Stow the attitude; you could have easily posted a screenshot. Instead, you went blakeybaiting. I may not like the guy, but that doesn't mean I want to read through page after page of deliberate baiting.
-
I realize there's no direct parallel, but don't forget in the US, the barrier is "pass a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, the President doesn't veto, and then also pass in 2/3 of the states."
Your broad strokes about the difficulty are correct, but you have two specifics wrong:- I am almost positive the president doesn't get an opportunity to veto the amendment proposal.
- It needs to be adopted by 3/4 of the states, not 2/3.
In addition, the Congress requirement can be replaced by a call for a convention from 2/3 of the states. (This is probably academic; such a convention has never successfully been called.)
-
Our political system has many problems. And none of them are even remotely close to being fixed
I think that's true of every political system. :-)
-
Stow the attitude
What the hell's wrong with you? The "I'll take my badger" was a pre-emptive "maybe I didn't get some kind of joke" statement. Instead, blakey hurled invective at me.
-
-
And? Doesn't mean you have to goad him on.
Ugh. You can have the last word, but I won't see it. I'm going to mute the topic.
-
Or neither? If you'd posted that after Blakey first questioned what you were seeing, then the whole thing would have been sorted that much quicker.
Give up. This fucking moron still thinks I'm going to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in the UK because I mentioned that I liked the trailer. A three-year-old's reading skills would dwarf this guy's.
-
You get some warped history there in Euro-land.
You keep saying Euro-land, we keep calling the United States a single uni-cultural country, deal?
-
And we'd still be less wrong. As in, the differences are definitely not as striking across the US as they are across EU, let alone whole of Europe.
-
Why is that family in particular royalty?
Because they passed [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701]a law[/url] saying so.