FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Two centuries of US immigration visualised

Two centuries of US immigration visualised

(1:41) From 1820 to 2013, 79 million people obtained lawful permanent resident status in the United States. The brightness of a country corresponds to its total migration to the US at the given time. 1 dot = 10,000 people. More...

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (752 days ago)

For a country you Brits think is hated so much that nobody wants to come here, we certainly get a lot of immigrants. You should try to imagine why. The American dream is a real thing.

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

For a country you Brits think is hated so much that nobody wants to come here, we certainly get a lot of immigrants. You should try to imagine why. The American dream is a real thing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (752 days ago)

The American dream is a dream.

As a total number of immigrants, the USA is followed by countries like Germany, Russia and Saudia Arabia. As a proportion of their over-all population, Middle Eastern countries have a far higher number of immigrants. I wouldn't say any of these countries are particularly popular on the world stage - but still far more attractive than many impoverished neighbouring countries which ultimately is the only thing being gauged with immigration statistics.

ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment

The American dream is a dream.

As a total number of immigrants, the USA is followed by countries like Germany, Russia and Saudia Arabia. As a proportion of their over-all population, Middle Eastern countries have a far higher number of immigrants. I wouldn't say any of these countries are particularly popular on the world stage - but still far more attractive than many impoverished neighbouring countries which ultimately is the only thing being gauged with immigration statistics.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (752 days ago)

Things must really be bad in those other countries for anyone to want to go to that shit hole usa.

ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment

Things must really be bad in those other countries for anyone to want to go to that shit hole usa.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: metricman123 (743 days ago)

It's not the coutry we hate, it's you, stupid.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

It's not the coutry we hate, it's you, stupid.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (752 days ago)

The american dream is dead.

Hard to dream when the 1% have their thumb on your head.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

The american dream is dead.

Hard to dream when the 1% have their thumb on your head.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (752 days ago)

The American Dream is a con, like trickle-down economics. Those at the top want to take and keep everything - and the more powerful they become, the easier it is to do just that. If only more of the 1% were like Elon Musk.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

The American Dream is a con, like trickle-down economics. Those at the top want to take and keep everything - and the more powerful they become, the easier it is to do just that. If only more of the 1% were like Elon Musk.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (751 days ago)

You don't understand what the American Dream is.

American Dream: noun the ideal that every US citizen should have an equal opportunity to achieve success and prosperity through hard work, determination, and initiative.

US citizens can achieve success through hard work, determination, and initiative. You may not think so because there are billionaires here but that just shows how successful someone can become over here.

There are British billionaires too. Here's a list of the top 25: LINK

How much hard work does someone need to do in order to become the next King of England? Is it even possible for a regular citizen? NO! Of course not. There is no possible way for a regular citizen to get that position. I think that is a problem and you don't. We even have a constitutional amendment to limits for our Presidents to 2 terms of 4 years each. This was to prevent Presidents from acting like a monarch or dictator.

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

You don't understand what the American Dream is.

American Dream: noun the ideal that every US citizen should have an equal opportunity to achieve success and prosperity through hard work, determination, and initiative.

US citizens can achieve success through hard work, determination, and initiative. You may not think so because there are billionaires here but that just shows how successful someone can become over here.

There are British billionaires too. Here's a list of the top 25: LINK

How much hard work does someone need to do in order to become the next King of England? Is it even possible for a regular citizen? NO! Of course not. There is no possible way for a regular citizen to get that position. I think that is a problem and you don't. We even have a constitutional amendment to limits for our Presidents to 2 terms of 4 years each. This was to prevent Presidents from acting like a monarch or dictator.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
bamber bamber (749 days ago)

You think our monarch has political power? You're about 450 years out of date. Don't compare your stupid democracy with our stupid democracy; they're different types of stupid.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

You think our monarch has political power? You're about 450 years out of date. Don't compare your stupid democracy with our stupid democracy; they're different types of stupid.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (749 days ago)

Here are a couple things I know about your monarch that I consider power:

She can dismiss your prime minister and appoint her own. Technically, she appoints them after the election picking the person that she feels will get the best support from the House of Commons.

She routinely has private meetings with the prime minister. No other citizens have this capability.

Since 1952 the Queen has given royal assent to more than 3,500 Acts of Parliament. She retains the power to refuse assent although has never done it.

The Queen is the official head of the Church of England.

The Queen has the power to declare war against other nations.

Under British law, The Queen is above the law and cannot be prosecuted – she is also free from civil action

The Queen has the ability to pardon criminals.

The Queen is the Command in Chief of the Armed Forces. All the soldiers swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join

The Queen controls the passports. She can grant them and revoke them.

The Queen can take over ships. This power was used on the QE2 to take troops to the Falklands after the Argentine invasion in 1982

That is a lot of power for someone you Brits think is just a figure head and tourist attraction of sorts.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

Here are a couple things I know about your monarch that I consider power:

She can dismiss your prime minister and appoint her own. Technically, she appoints them after the election picking the person that she feels will get the best support from the House of Commons.

She routinely has private meetings with the prime minister. No other citizens have this capability.

Since 1952 the Queen has given royal assent to more than 3,500 Acts of Parliament. She retains the power to refuse assent although has never done it.

The Queen is the official head of the Church of England.

The Queen has the power to declare war against other nations.

Under British law, The Queen is above the law and cannot be prosecuted – she is also free from civil action

The Queen has the ability to pardon criminals.

The Queen is the Command in Chief of the Armed Forces. All the soldiers swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join

The Queen controls the passports. She can grant them and revoke them.

The Queen can take over ships. This power was used on the QE2 to take troops to the Falklands after the Argentine invasion in 1982

That is a lot of power for someone you Brits think is just a figure head and tourist attraction of sorts.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (748 days ago)

No comment so I have to believe you Brits finally agree that your queen does have a lot of political power.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

No comment so I have to believe you Brits finally agree that your queen does have a lot of political power.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (748 days ago)

She does, will she ever use it, probably not.

Would anything she wills ever be adopted, probably not.

She has the power to close parlaiment in Canada and order an election.

Traditionally she would never do this, which would cause the call for abandonment of the royalty.

We love and respect the queen out of tradition.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

She does, will she ever use it, probably not.

Would anything she wills ever be adopted, probably not.

She has the power to close parlaiment in Canada and order an election.

Traditionally she would never do this, which would cause the call for abandonment of the royalty.

We love and respect the queen out of tradition.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (748 days ago)

If she wouldn't use the power then you should take it away from her. Make it a real democracy instead of a monarchy. Why give someone the power if they will never use it? You could always get a tyrannical monarch in office and they might so you should protect yourself and take their power away now.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

If she wouldn't use the power then you should take it away from her. Make it a real democracy instead of a monarchy. Why give someone the power if they will never use it? You could always get a tyrannical monarch in office and they might so you should protect yourself and take their power away now.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (748 days ago)

LINK

Canada ranks higher than the united states on the democracy scale.

In that case we have a more democratic system than the usa.

ReplyVote up (101)down (82)
Original comment

LINK

Canada ranks higher than the united states on the democracy scale.

In that case we have a more democratic system than the usa.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (748 days ago)

Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark all rate higher than Canda. So what was your point again? How does this answer the question about taking the power away from the Queen since she doesn't use it or never will anyway?

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark all rate higher than Canda. So what was your point again? How does this answer the question about taking the power away from the Queen since she doesn't use it or never will anyway?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (748 days ago)

It just proves that Canada is more democratic than the usa.

So if we are already more democratic than you, how do you suggest we get a real democracy.

Listen, I know your just a blow hard so give it up already.

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

It just proves that Canada is more democratic than the usa.

So if we are already more democratic than you, how do you suggest we get a real democracy.

Listen, I know your just a blow hard so give it up already.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: metricman123 (745 days ago)

You keep goin on about our Queen and aall the wrongs she could do to us. You are an American. Why do do go on so much about it? My guess is that you are jealous.You wish you can have real class but are stuck. Why? Because you are an American.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

You keep goin on about our Queen and aall the wrongs she could do to us. You are an American. Why do do go on so much about it? My guess is that you are jealous.You wish you can have real class but are stuck. Why? Because you are an American.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (748 days ago)

This is not the way to do things.

We are a constitutional monarchy, with the most viable form of democracy you can have, why would we change?

Most of what the queen owns is actually owned by the people and not her.

Protect ourselves from what?

The royalty is not allowed to make decision regarding politics, however she is the technical leader of our country and the prime minister is the people's rep to parlaiment. We do not vote for the prime minister, we vote for the party and the party chooses its leader, who then becomes the prime minister. The queen is a figurehead, each old dominion has its own constitution and parlaiment.

You need to read more about the evolution of democracy and how the United states framed its govt according to france and the rest of the world framed its govt according to england.

ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment

This is not the way to do things.

We are a constitutional monarchy, with the most viable form of democracy you can have, why would we change?

Most of what the queen owns is actually owned by the people and not her.

Protect ourselves from what?

The royalty is not allowed to make decision regarding politics, however she is the technical leader of our country and the prime minister is the people's rep to parlaiment. We do not vote for the prime minister, we vote for the party and the party chooses its leader, who then becomes the prime minister. The queen is a figurehead, each old dominion has its own constitution and parlaiment.

You need to read more about the evolution of democracy and how the United states framed its govt according to france and the rest of the world framed its govt according to england.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (748 days ago)

You don't seem to understand how the politics work in the UK.

The people elect a prime minister through a voting process. The queen then looks at who the people voted and then picks who she feels will have the most support in the House of Commons. That is usually the one the people voted for but it doesn't have to be. She can then fire the prime minister at any time and appoint her own rendering your voting system completely worthless. Is that what you call a democracy?

The queen signs the Acts of Parliment into law and she has the power to reject them. Does that sound like a democracy to you?

You (or someone else) has stated that you are a constitutional monarchy but you don't have a written constitution. It is a false pretence that you are a constitutional monarchy even though many people think it is. What you should do is create a constitution and revoke all the queen's power.

We did not frame our government according to England. Our founding fathers were very careful to not have the same problems in the USA so we framed ours much differently. There are clauses in it to prevent it from being similar such as disallowing titles of royalty or nobility.

We have three branches of government and none of them have more power than any of the others. All three must work together and agree on issues to make things happen. Your government can have a billion branches but at the end of the day, the queen can reject any Act of Parliment she wants without reason.

ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment

You don't seem to understand how the politics work in the UK.

The people elect a prime minister through a voting process. The queen then looks at who the people voted and then picks who she feels will have the most support in the House of Commons. That is usually the one the people voted for but it doesn't have to be. She can then fire the prime minister at any time and appoint her own rendering your voting system completely worthless. Is that what you call a democracy?

The queen signs the Acts of Parliment into law and she has the power to reject them. Does that sound like a democracy to you?

You (or someone else) has stated that you are a constitutional monarchy but you don't have a written constitution. It is a false pretence that you are a constitutional monarchy even though many people think it is. What you should do is create a constitution and revoke all the queen's power.

We did not frame our government according to England. Our founding fathers were very careful to not have the same problems in the USA so we framed ours much differently. There are clauses in it to prevent it from being similar such as disallowing titles of royalty or nobility.

We have three branches of government and none of them have more power than any of the others. All three must work together and agree on issues to make things happen. Your government can have a billion branches but at the end of the day, the queen can reject any Act of Parliment she wants without reason.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (748 days ago)

It's frustrating to see an American and a Canadian guess at how UK politics works. I've been a British citizen all my life, so let me help you out:

In the UK, we choose the leading party of government through a democratic process. 'The people elect a prime minister' - no, we do not vote for prime ministers, your mistake. We don't have a personality / celebrity based politics system, and we're better off for it - we vote for a party instead. The Queen appointing or dismissing ministers is ceremonial, and is dictated by whichever party won the election, and whoever has the most support within that party to lead them. The only issue is with hung parliament, but for the sake of repeating the voting process and having a new election it makes far more sense for someone outside the system who is famously non-political to make a choice based on parliamentary factors.

No, a constitution does not have to be written, not in a single document or at all - it's known as an uncodified constitution (Google it). Now you know. The alternative form of monarchy is absolutist - we executed the last monarch that had a go at that.

The last time a British monarch refused to give royal assent to an Act of Parliament was 1704 before your country existed. Does that sound like an active threat to democracy to you?

You seem to be unable to distinguish between potential or ceremonial power, and actual political power. Technically, the POTUS has the power to put American citizens into concentration camps (like Roosevelt did), but that's hardly representative of their role, even though that happened within living memory. Similarly, the Queen also has more obscure political powers outside the ceremonial positions she is known for, but if she started to use them or to become more political, our system would change dramatically. Unlike you, we are not so constrained in creating change where it is needed. The fact that our monarchy been able to adapt to the modern world and remain non-political is the reason we still have it. I'm no royalist, but we have a symbolic and non-political figurehead who is respected world over, a diplomat with decades of experience, and someone who links us to over 50 other countries. I expect as an American you can't see the point in those sorts of fraternal international relations but we do.

By the way, your system of government, along with most democratic countries, is based on the fundamental concept of representative assembly. That's the first building block. England has championed this for centuries - it's where you got it from. That's not all - the 'Due Process' clause of your Constitution was based on our Magna Carta which restricted tyrannical power, and your specific interpretation of it that applies all the rights to everyone, not just nobles, was first put forward by two judges in England. Your concept of 'consent of the governed' by which a ruler is contracted to protect the life, liberty and property of the people comes from British political philosophers Locke and Hobbes. Your bill of rights was based on the English Bill of Rights which established jury trials, a right to bear arms, and banned torture etc. Anything else you've borrowed?

However, obviously our systems aren't the same. In your 'democracy', to get into power is a simple matter of money. As Trump as shown, you can be totally devoid of political experience or talent, but if you were born into a rich family you can pump funds into your campaign, make the right corporate connections and get media dominance. By contrast, in the UK, literally anyone can become an MP and moreover we don't have the same level of sponsorships and corruption. Furthermore, we have effectively limited our historical restraints with new legislation, whereas in the USA, you are still eternally hog-tied by the actions of men that died centuries ago - you have only managed to update your constituion 17 times in 225 years! Laughable. Yes, your branches must work together to 'make things happen', but of course in reality they don't, meaning a very small minority can block a very popular motion. This is why (newsflash) the USA is famous for political gridlock, cyclical two-party politics, and money-driven power play.

ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment

It's frustrating to see an American and a Canadian guess at how UK politics works. I've been a British citizen all my life, so let me help you out:

In the UK, we choose the leading party of government through a democratic process. 'The people elect a prime minister' - no, we do not vote for prime ministers, your mistake. We don't have a personality / celebrity based politics system, and we're better off for it - we vote for a party instead. The Queen appointing or dismissing ministers is ceremonial, and is dictated by whichever party won the election, and whoever has the most support within that party to lead them. The only issue is with hung parliament, but for the sake of repeating the voting process and having a new election it makes far more sense for someone outside the system who is famously non-political to make a choice based on parliamentary factors.

No, a constitution does not have to be written, not in a single document or at all - it's known as an uncodified constitution (Google it). Now you know. The alternative form of monarchy is absolutist - we executed the last monarch that had a go at that.

The last time a British monarch refused to give royal assent to an Act of Parliament was 1704 before your country existed. Does that sound like an active threat to democracy to you?

You seem to be unable to distinguish between potential or ceremonial power, and actual political power. Technically, the POTUS has the power to put American citizens into concentration camps (like Roosevelt did), but that's hardly representative of their role, even though that happened within living memory. Similarly, the Queen also has more obscure political powers outside the ceremonial positions she is known for, but if she started to use them or to become more political, our system would change dramatically. Unlike you, we are not so constrained in creating change where it is needed. The fact that our monarchy been able to adapt to the modern world and remain non-political is the reason we still have it. I'm no royalist, but we have a symbolic and non-political figurehead who is respected world over, a diplomat with decades of experience, and someone who links us to over 50 other countries. I expect as an American you can't see the point in those sorts of fraternal international relations but we do.

By the way, your system of government, along with most democratic countries, is based on the fundamental concept of representative assembly. That's the first building block. England has championed this for centuries - it's where you got it from. That's not all - the 'Due Process' clause of your Constitution was based on our Magna Carta which restricted tyrannical power, and your specific interpretation of it that applies all the rights to everyone, not just nobles, was first put forward by two judges in England. Your concept of 'consent of the governed' by which a ruler is contracted to protect the life, liberty and property of the people comes from British political philosophers Locke and Hobbes. Your bill of rights was based on the English Bill of Rights which established jury trials, a right to bear arms, and banned torture etc. Anything else you've borrowed?

However, obviously our systems aren't the same. In your 'democracy', to get into power is a simple matter of money. As Trump as shown, you can be totally devoid of political experience or talent, but if you were born into a rich family you can pump funds into your campaign, make the right corporate connections and get media dominance. By contrast, in the UK, literally anyone can become an MP and moreover we don't have the same level of sponsorships and corruption. Furthermore, we have effectively limited our historical restraints with new legislation, whereas in the USA, you are still eternally hog-tied by the actions of men that died centuries ago - you have only managed to update your constituion 17 times in 225 years! Laughable. Yes, your branches must work together to 'make things happen', but of course in reality they don't, meaning a very small minority can block a very popular motion. This is why (newsflash) the USA is famous for political gridlock, cyclical two-party politics, and money-driven power play.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (748 days ago)

You guys are really stupid. I cannot believe you don't see what I see. Your queen has power but you say it's only ceremonial and she would never use it. You have given her that power and you have a nice queen that hasn't used it but that could change. You should create a constitution to limit her power and make it equivalent to any other citizen. If you don't do that then you have to still consider yourself a monarch and not a real democracy.

I couldn't care less if you think it's only ceremonial because it's a real power and not just ceremonial. Stay in your dream state and maybe one day you'll wake up and smell the coffee.

Regarding your comment about 1704 being before we were a country, that was technically before we declared our independence from the tyrannical King of England but we were around about a century before that. Christopher Columbus landed in the America's in 1492 and the Mayflower arrived in Cape Cod 1620. There were others before Columbus like the vikings but they didn't have to do with the modern settlers.

ReplyVote up (101)down (65)
Original comment

You guys are really stupid. I cannot believe you don't see what I see. Your queen has power but you say it's only ceremonial and she would never use it. You have given her that power and you have a nice queen that hasn't used it but that could change. You should create a constitution to limit her power and make it equivalent to any other citizen. If you don't do that then you have to still consider yourself a monarch and not a real democracy.

I couldn't care less if you think it's only ceremonial because it's a real power and not just ceremonial. Stay in your dream state and maybe one day you'll wake up and smell the coffee.

Regarding your comment about 1704 being before we were a country, that was technically before we declared our independence from the tyrannical King of England but we were around about a century before that. Christopher Columbus landed in the America's in 1492 and the Mayflower arrived in Cape Cod 1620. There were others before Columbus like the vikings but they didn't have to do with the modern settlers.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: metricman123 (745 days ago)

You really are pathetically stupid. Your brain has been gridlocked with all that diatribe that you cannot think straight.

You call us stupid but we still have one thing up on you. We are not American.

p.s. In a survey carried out in the 1990's. the average 20 year old Americam had the same IQ as the average 14 year old European.

I love America but it is ruined by the locals.

ReplyVote up (101)down (62)
Original comment

You really are pathetically stupid. Your brain has been gridlocked with all that diatribe that you cannot think straight.

You call us stupid but we still have one thing up on you. We are not American.

p.s. In a survey carried out in the 1990's. the average 20 year old Americam had the same IQ as the average 14 year old European.

I love America but it is ruined by the locals.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (747 days ago)

You keep banging on about the "tyrannical" King of England.

Can you give us three examples of King George's "tyranny"?

ReplyVote up (101)down (66)
Original comment

You keep banging on about the "tyrannical" King of England.

Can you give us three examples of King George's "tyranny"?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (747 days ago)

I can give you more than three. It's listed in our declaration of independence and a guest conveniently posted them on Boreme 7 days ago here:

LINK

But I'll copy and paste them here for your convenience:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

ReplyVote up (101)down (71)
Original comment

I can give you more than three. It's listed in our declaration of independence and a guest conveniently posted them on Boreme 7 days ago here:

LINK

But I'll copy and paste them here for your convenience:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (747 days ago)

Funny he didn't do that to us, maybe because we were loyal to the crown and you guys weren't.

ReplyVote up (101)down (66)
Original comment

Funny he didn't do that to us, maybe because we were loyal to the crown and you guys weren't.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (747 days ago)

Is that it?

I was imagining "tyranny" more like abduction, indefinite imprisonment without trial, torture - you know, like extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, ignoring habeas corpus - that sort of thing.

Instead, this reads like a bunch of tax-dodgers whinging about how much they have to pay.

Anyway, Cary, why do you find it necessary to post under different identities? What prompts you to practise such deception and duplicity?

ReplyVote up (101)down (77)
Original comment

Is that it?

I was imagining "tyranny" more like abduction, indefinite imprisonment without trial, torture - you know, like extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, ignoring habeas corpus - that sort of thing.

Instead, this reads like a bunch of tax-dodgers whinging about how much they have to pay.

Anyway, Cary, why do you find it necessary to post under different identities? What prompts you to practise such deception and duplicity?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (747 days ago)

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"

"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. "

ReplyVote up (101)down (76)
Original comment

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"

"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. "

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (747 days ago)

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"

Guantanamo

"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. "

Nicaragua

Pot calling kettle black, Cary.

Why do you post under different identities?

ReplyVote up (101)down (75)
Original comment

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"

Guantanamo

"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. "

Nicaragua

Pot calling kettle black, Cary.

Why do you post under different identities?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (747 days ago)

That last quote is hilarious. Bearing in mind the British were vastly outnumbered by the foreign hoards of Spanish, Dutch and of course French soldiers that ended up winning the war on behalf of the colonists!

ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment

That last quote is hilarious. Bearing in mind the British were vastly outnumbered by the foreign hoards of Spanish, Dutch and of course French soldiers that ended up winning the war on behalf of the colonists!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (747 days ago)

The feeling is mutual. Well I wouldn't call you stupid - but you could do with spending a bit of time researching on the matters you choose to talk about.

You're right though, the people have given the Queen the powers that she has. Those powers are constrained and defined within the uncodified constitution which has been compiled for that reason. For centuries we have been tweaking (and mostly reducing) the power of our monarchs until we have reached the current situation. And here we are, we still get the benefit of a non-political figurehead with decades of diplomatic experience, yet with none of the disadvantages. I will repeat - if a monarch here were ever to exercise powers in ways that the people do not approve of, or use the Royal prerogative is an unconstitutional way it would change - unlike you, we can do that. I guess you didn't hear about the English Civil War. I couldn't care less if you think it's an active threat to our democracy. It clearly and obviously is not, and hasn't been for a few centuries. Our constitutional monarchy is the archetype of that form of monarchy, and our parliamentary democracy has been used as a model world over and its principles form the basic building blocks of your own government.

And in reply to a more recent comment of yours - do you see any irony in complaining about being denied the right to a trial by jury when it was the English bill of Rights that afforded you that concept in the first place? Plus I'm afraid your knowledge of King George is more than a few decades out of date. Modern historians (including Americans) consider him to generally be the subject of a defamation campaign by early historians. Read up on it. He wasn't the best king we've had, but for example with taxes he was known to be defending the right of parliament to levy them, not extending his own powers. He was a champion of religious tolerance (which the colonists didn't like), he protected land-rights of the indigenous Americans (which the colonists didn't like), and he even turned over the profits of the Crown to parliament. Tyrant? Please. Historical revisionism, trying to excuse a rebellion.

Before your independence, you were nothing but a group of colonies, and before that, the land belonged (as it always should have) to the Native American tribes. There was no single nation before the Revolutionary War so my point stands. I can understand having to educate you about politics in the UK where you clearly have never lived, but seriously - I have to teach you the origins of your own country?

ReplyVote up (101)down (76)
Original comment

The feeling is mutual. Well I wouldn't call you stupid - but you could do with spending a bit of time researching on the matters you choose to talk about.

You're right though, the people have given the Queen the powers that she has. Those powers are constrained and defined within the uncodified constitution which has been compiled for that reason. For centuries we have been tweaking (and mostly reducing) the power of our monarchs until we have reached the current situation. And here we are, we still get the benefit of a non-political figurehead with decades of diplomatic experience, yet with none of the disadvantages. I will repeat - if a monarch here were ever to exercise powers in ways that the people do not approve of, or use the Royal prerogative is an unconstitutional way it would change - unlike you, we can do that. I guess you didn't hear about the English Civil War. I couldn't care less if you think it's an active threat to our democracy. It clearly and obviously is not, and hasn't been for a few centuries. Our constitutional monarchy is the archetype of that form of monarchy, and our parliamentary democracy has been used as a model world over and its principles form the basic building blocks of your own government.

And in reply to a more recent comment of yours - do you see any irony in complaining about being denied the right to a trial by jury when it was the English bill of Rights that afforded you that concept in the first place? Plus I'm afraid your knowledge of King George is more than a few decades out of date. Modern historians (including Americans) consider him to generally be the subject of a defamation campaign by early historians. Read up on it. He wasn't the best king we've had, but for example with taxes he was known to be defending the right of parliament to levy them, not extending his own powers. He was a champion of religious tolerance (which the colonists didn't like), he protected land-rights of the indigenous Americans (which the colonists didn't like), and he even turned over the profits of the Crown to parliament. Tyrant? Please. Historical revisionism, trying to excuse a rebellion.

Before your independence, you were nothing but a group of colonies, and before that, the land belonged (as it always should have) to the Native American tribes. There was no single nation before the Revolutionary War so my point stands. I can understand having to educate you about politics in the UK where you clearly have never lived, but seriously - I have to teach you the origins of your own country?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (742 days ago)

No comment so I have to assume he has finally done some homework and realised that the UK is more democratic and more free than the USA. Amazing what a history lesson does to an argument.

ReplyVote up (101)down (64)
Original comment

No comment so I have to assume he has finally done some homework and realised that the UK is more democratic and more free than the USA. Amazing what a history lesson does to an argument.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: thundercat (742 days ago)
Latest comment:

Of course it is more free and so is canada. I really don't understand americans. Or like Bowie said"im afraid of americans"

LINK

ReplyVote up (101)down (68)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Of course it is more free and so is canada. I really don't understand americans. Or like Bowie said"im afraid of americans"

LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (747 days ago)

Your right.

Basically there was a bunch of rich guys in america that wanted the taxes for themselves and not send it to the crown.

I think the more accurate term is traitors.

ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment

Your right.

Basically there was a bunch of rich guys in america that wanted the taxes for themselves and not send it to the crown.

I think the more accurate term is traitors.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: thundercat (748 days ago)

You could give me credit for trying.

Canada's govt works exactly the same but he said it better.

Bravo guest.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

You could give me credit for trying.

Canada's govt works exactly the same but he said it better.

Bravo guest.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (748 days ago)

The queen is not allowed to make decisions regarding politics.

We do indeed have a written constitution. If your schools would bother to teach you anything you would already know that.

The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law in Canada ; the country's constitution is an amalgamation of codified acts and uncodified traditions and conventions. It is one of the oldest working constitutions in the world, with a basis in Magna Carta.

The governor general has the power of the crown in Canada, and is the real behind the scenes ruler of Canada. His/her main function is to open and close parlaiment. He also decides who has enough votes to make a govt, and every time we have an election our govt is rebuilt. Parlaimentarians can from time to time appeal to the govt gen for different things one of which is to recognize a vote of non-confidence. This is like when you impeach a president and causes an election to take place. The crown can do nothing without the permission of the people, the govt can do nothing without the permission of the crown.

Politics is similar in Great Britain.

Your country is the one without a true democracy. lol you only have two partys and big corporations control it. No thanks we don't want that kind of democracy, thank you.

Your countrys govt is modeled after that of france.

Please go read your history.

ReplyVote up (88)down (101)
Original comment

The queen is not allowed to make decisions regarding politics.

We do indeed have a written constitution. If your schools would bother to teach you anything you would already know that.

The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law in Canada ; the country's constitution is an amalgamation of codified acts and uncodified traditions and conventions. It is one of the oldest working constitutions in the world, with a basis in Magna Carta.

The governor general has the power of the crown in Canada, and is the real behind the scenes ruler of Canada. His/her main function is to open and close parlaiment. He also decides who has enough votes to make a govt, and every time we have an election our govt is rebuilt. Parlaimentarians can from time to time appeal to the govt gen for different things one of which is to recognize a vote of non-confidence. This is like when you impeach a president and causes an election to take place. The crown can do nothing without the permission of the people, the govt can do nothing without the permission of the crown.

Politics is similar in Great Britain.

Your country is the one without a true democracy. lol you only have two partys and big corporations control it. No thanks we don't want that kind of democracy, thank you.

Your countrys govt is modeled after that of france.

Please go read your history.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: metricman123 (743 days ago)

I am happy with the democracy I have thank you very much. In the UK you can, if you work hard enough, become Prime Minister. In America you have to be billionaire.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

I am happy with the democracy I have thank you very much. In the UK you can, if you work hard enough, become Prime Minister. In America you have to be billionaire.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: metricman123 (743 days ago)

She can dismiss your prime minister and appoint her own. Technically, she appoints them after the election picking the person that she feels will get the best support from the House of Commons. – No she cannot dismiss any prime minister. Not can she appoint one. Since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, the Sovereigns powers were almost diminished. The reigning monarch has no powers what so ever in the house of commons. The last king that tried that had his head lopped off at the end of a rather messy civil war.

She routinely has private meetings with the prime minister. No other citizens have this capability. – It’s the other way around. The prime minister has a meeting with the Queen to discuss top-secret matters. That is why no records are kept of these meetings. Can you make an appointment with your President? On a weekly basis?

Since 1952 the Queen has given royal assent to more than 3,500 Acts of Parliament. She retains the power to refuse assent although has never done it. – She does have this power but the House of Commons has the power to enforce any laws not ratified by the House of Lords. – In order for a law to become a law it needs to be ratified by both the houses and then by the reigning monarch. Do you not have a similar system in the US?

The Queen is the official head of the Church of England. – It was Henry VIII who formed the C of E so, yes the reigning monarch is always the head.

The Queen has the power to declare war against other nations. – No she does not. That is the privilege of the House of Commons AFTER a vote. The last time that there was a vote to go to war the government lost and we did not go.

Under British law, The Queen is above the law and cannot be prosecuted – she is also free from civil action. This is true. The queen however would not even dream of breaking the law.

The Queen has the ability to pardon criminals. - The courts have this ability not the queen. The queen issues the pardons on the recommendation of the courts.

The Queen is the Command in Chief of the Armed Forces. All the soldiers swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join – The President is the commander in Chief of the US armed forces. What’s the point here. There needs to be a head somewhere.

The Queen controls the passports. She can grant them and revoke them. - Yes, she stays up all night pondering if Mrs. Biggins should get her passport. You Pillock.

The Queen can take over ships. This power was used on the QE2 to take troops to the Falklands after the Argentine invasion in 1982 – The President also has the power of secondment. Most if not all head of states have this power for emergencies.

That is a lot of power for someone you Brits think is just a figurehead and tourist attraction of sorts. – The Queen has very limited powers. Most of her “powers” are controlled by acts of parliament. Although she is said to be a tourist attraction 99.99999999% of tourists have never met her so not much of an attraction is she. By the way, we do have other things in UK for tourists. Do people go to the US just to see the President?

ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment

She can dismiss your prime minister and appoint her own. Technically, she appoints them after the election picking the person that she feels will get the best support from the House of Commons. – No she cannot dismiss any prime minister. Not can she appoint one. Since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, the Sovereigns powers were almost diminished. The reigning monarch has no powers what so ever in the house of commons. The last king that tried that had his head lopped off at the end of a rather messy civil war.

She routinely has private meetings with the prime minister. No other citizens have this capability. – It’s the other way around. The prime minister has a meeting with the Queen to discuss top-secret matters. That is why no records are kept of these meetings. Can you make an appointment with your President? On a weekly basis?

Since 1952 the Queen has given royal assent to more than 3,500 Acts of Parliament. She retains the power to refuse assent although has never done it. – She does have this power but the House of Commons has the power to enforce any laws not ratified by the House of Lords. – In order for a law to become a law it needs to be ratified by both the houses and then by the reigning monarch. Do you not have a similar system in the US?

The Queen is the official head of the Church of England. – It was Henry VIII who formed the C of E so, yes the reigning monarch is always the head.

The Queen has the power to declare war against other nations. – No she does not. That is the privilege of the House of Commons AFTER a vote. The last time that there was a vote to go to war the government lost and we did not go.

Under British law, The Queen is above the law and cannot be prosecuted – she is also free from civil action. This is true. The queen however would not even dream of breaking the law.

The Queen has the ability to pardon criminals. - The courts have this ability not the queen. The queen issues the pardons on the recommendation of the courts.

The Queen is the Command in Chief of the Armed Forces. All the soldiers swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join – The President is the commander in Chief of the US armed forces. What’s the point here. There needs to be a head somewhere.

The Queen controls the passports. She can grant them and revoke them. - Yes, she stays up all night pondering if Mrs. Biggins should get her passport. You Pillock.

The Queen can take over ships. This power was used on the QE2 to take troops to the Falklands after the Argentine invasion in 1982 – The President also has the power of secondment. Most if not all head of states have this power for emergencies.

That is a lot of power for someone you Brits think is just a figurehead and tourist attraction of sorts. – The Queen has very limited powers. Most of her “powers” are controlled by acts of parliament. Although she is said to be a tourist attraction 99.99999999% of tourists have never met her so not much of an attraction is she. By the way, we do have other things in UK for tourists. Do people go to the US just to see the President?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: metricman123 (743 days ago)

I want to put the cat amongst the pidgins now. Here are some things that I find weird/odd/annoying about America(ns):

This is the nation that makes more porn than the rest of the world put together, invented the snuff movie. They get highly offended about a start showing her three-penny bits of at the Superbowl.

Some loony kids manage to get guns and explosives and go on a killing spree at their local high school (Columbine). You had a golden opportunity to get some kind of gun control but because of a lobby company nothing got done. Since then there have been numerous high school killings. Most people learn by their mistakes but not in the USA. Here in the UK, when one of our loonies did the same (at Hungerford) we introduced stiffer gun controls. When some UK gun lobbyist tried to stop the reforms they were told to sit down and shut up.

Quote of the week (may be appocrful but judging by the usual American tourists, not) – American tourist in Windsor Castle – “Gee, this sure is a nice castle, but why build it so close to the airport?”

American tourists in a Swiss castle near Geneva were viewing the suits of 14th century armour. One crossed over the rope that said “Do Not Cross” and placed the arm of the armour over his shoulder for a photo. HE got upset when everybody told him not to be so (expletive deleted) stupid. I was one of the people who had a go at him telling him it is a real 600 year old suit of armour not a Walt Disney version.

I think that the reason that the American government is so aggressive/assertive nowadays is that they were late for the last two world wars so want to be bang on time for the next one.

The American Constitution:

1st Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances – In other words, no laws can be passed against the above. For example, the KKK.

2nd Amendments protects the right to keep and bear arms. – So any loony can get a gun and slaughter your children. When someone tried to pass laws to stop this madness they are pilloried.

3rd Amendment places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, prohibiting it during peacetime – except if they are in other countries when they simply take over large areas for their own ends (e.g. Greenham Common, UK)

4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate. – Unless you are black, then the police can shoot you instead!

5th Amendment sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy. – Keep your gob shut and you could get away with it, no matter how terrible your crimes.

6th Amendment protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel. – Trails often go on for years. The American people are very litigious and would sue you for “looking at them in a funny way”.

7th Amendment provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law – If you are black you can get a white jury


8th Amendment prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. - If you get sued you could pay millions of dollars even for silly things (see 7th amendment)

9th Amendment protects rights not enumerated in the Constitution. – Protects you against laws that don’t exist? Please explain this one, it makes no sense to me.


10th Amendment reinforces the principle of federalism by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the states or the people through the Constitution. – To change/amend make laws it takes years and a lot of bargaining. By the time the law is passed it resembles nothing of the original intended law so doesn’t protect what it sought out to do.

11th Amendment makes states immune from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders; lays the foundation for sovereign immunity. – You mean that visitors to your shores are not protected by your laws? For example, a policeman shoots me (highly unlikely) I am not guilty of anything. I cannot sue?

12th Amendment revises presidential election procedures. – Presidents can say what they like to get elected then take the “12th” so not to carry out their manifesto.


13th Amendment abolishes slavery, and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. – Did America not have a civil war over slavery. Nearly everywhere else just made slavery illegal.


14th Amendment defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and deals with post-Civil War issues. – States that after the civil war every body is equal. Unless of course you are black, poor, uneducated… or wealthy.


15th Amendment prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. – So how come black people are denied the vote in some southern states, even these days?


16th Amendment permits Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the United States Census. – Didn’t you have a tea party in Boston to celebrate taxes?


17th Amendment establishes the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. – Or popular money

18th Amendment prohibited the manufacturing or sale of alcohol within the United States. – And thus the start of the Mafia

19th Amendment prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex. – At last, something we can all agree on


20th Amendment changes the date on which the terms of the President and Vice President (January 20) and Senators and Representatives (January 3) end and begin March 2, - I can still remember President Obama standing in the freezing cold with his family and friends, the entire audience freezing their nuts off. Why now change it to a warmer month?


21st Amendment repeals the 18th Amendment and gives the States the power to prohibit or regulate the transportation or importation of alcohol for delivery or use. – spoil sports


22nd Amendment limits the number of times that a person can be elected president: a person cannot be elected president more than twice, and a person who has served more than two years of a term to which someone else was elected cannot be elected more than once. – I am assuming this means that if a President cannot serve their term in office and the VP takes over, they cannot go on for more than one re-election. Whet is they are really good?


23rd Amendment grants the District of Columbia electors (the number of electors being equal to the least populous state) in the Electoral College. - eh?


24th Amendment prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of a poll tax or any other tax. – Does this mean that a multi billionaire can swindle the tax-payers and government and still get the vote?

25th Amendment addresses succession to the Presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities.

26thpAmendment prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens, eighteen years of age or older, to vote on account of age. – I should think so too. Unless of course you are black, poor, uneducated…

27th Amendment delays laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives. – And we have seen what this has done haven’t we. The entire system comes to a grinding halt when Congress holds the USA to ransom

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

I want to put the cat amongst the pidgins now. Here are some things that I find weird/odd/annoying about America(ns):

This is the nation that makes more porn than the rest of the world put together, invented the snuff movie. They get highly offended about a start showing her three-penny bits of at the Superbowl.

Some loony kids manage to get guns and explosives and go on a killing spree at their local high school (Columbine). You had a golden opportunity to get some kind of gun control but because of a lobby company nothing got done. Since then there have been numerous high school killings. Most people learn by their mistakes but not in the USA. Here in the UK, when one of our loonies did the same (at Hungerford) we introduced stiffer gun controls. When some UK gun lobbyist tried to stop the reforms they were told to sit down and shut up.

Quote of the week (may be appocrful but judging by the usual American tourists, not) – American tourist in Windsor Castle – “Gee, this sure is a nice castle, but why build it so close to the airport?”

American tourists in a Swiss castle near Geneva were viewing the suits of 14th century armour. One crossed over the rope that said “Do Not Cross” and placed the arm of the armour over his shoulder for a photo. HE got upset when everybody told him not to be so (expletive deleted) stupid. I was one of the people who had a go at him telling him it is a real 600 year old suit of armour not a Walt Disney version.

I think that the reason that the American government is so aggressive/assertive nowadays is that they were late for the last two world wars so want to be bang on time for the next one.

The American Constitution:

1st Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances – In other words, no laws can be passed against the above. For example, the KKK.

2nd Amendments protects the right to keep and bear arms. – So any loony can get a gun and slaughter your children. When someone tried to pass laws to stop this madness they are pilloried.

3rd Amendment places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, prohibiting it during peacetime – except if they are in other countries when they simply take over large areas for their own ends (e.g. Greenham Common, UK)

4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate. – Unless you are black, then the police can shoot you instead!

5th Amendment sets out rules for indictment by grand jury and eminent domain, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy. – Keep your gob shut and you could get away with it, no matter how terrible your crimes.

6th Amendment protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel. – Trails often go on for years. The American people are very litigious and would sue you for “looking at them in a funny way”.

7th Amendment provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law – If you are black you can get a white jury


8th Amendment prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. - If you get sued you could pay millions of dollars even for silly things (see 7th amendment)

9th Amendment protects rights not enumerated in the Constitution. – Protects you against laws that don’t exist? Please explain this one, it makes no sense to me.


10th Amendment reinforces the principle of federalism by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the states or the people through the Constitution. – To change/amend make laws it takes years and a lot of bargaining. By the time the law is passed it resembles nothing of the original intended law so doesn’t protect what it sought out to do.

11th Amendment makes states immune from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders; lays the foundation for sovereign immunity. – You mean that visitors to your shores are not protected by your laws? For example, a policeman shoots me (highly unlikely) I am not guilty of anything. I cannot sue?

12th Amendment revises presidential election procedures. – Presidents can say what they like to get elected then take the “12th” so not to carry out their manifesto.


13th Amendment abolishes slavery, and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. – Did America not have a civil war over slavery. Nearly everywhere else just made slavery illegal.


14th Amendment defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and deals with post-Civil War issues. – States that after the civil war every body is equal. Unless of course you are black, poor, uneducated… or wealthy.


15th Amendment prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. – So how come black people are denied the vote in some southern states, even these days?


16th Amendment permits Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the United States Census. – Didn’t you have a tea party in Boston to celebrate taxes?


17th Amendment establishes the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. – Or popular money

18th Amendment prohibited the manufacturing or sale of alcohol within the United States. – And thus the start of the Mafia

19th Amendment prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex. – At last, something we can all agree on


20th Amendment changes the date on which the terms of the President and Vice President (January 20) and Senators and Representatives (January 3) end and begin March 2, - I can still remember President Obama standing in the freezing cold with his family and friends, the entire audience freezing their nuts off. Why now change it to a warmer month?


21st Amendment repeals the 18th Amendment and gives the States the power to prohibit or regulate the transportation or importation of alcohol for delivery or use. – spoil sports


22nd Amendment limits the number of times that a person can be elected president: a person cannot be elected president more than twice, and a person who has served more than two years of a term to which someone else was elected cannot be elected more than once. – I am assuming this means that if a President cannot serve their term in office and the VP takes over, they cannot go on for more than one re-election. Whet is they are really good?


23rd Amendment grants the District of Columbia electors (the number of electors being equal to the least populous state) in the Electoral College. - eh?


24th Amendment prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of a poll tax or any other tax. – Does this mean that a multi billionaire can swindle the tax-payers and government and still get the vote?

25th Amendment addresses succession to the Presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities.

26thpAmendment prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens, eighteen years of age or older, to vote on account of age. – I should think so too. Unless of course you are black, poor, uneducated…

27th Amendment delays laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives. – And we have seen what this has done haven’t we. The entire system comes to a grinding halt when Congress holds the USA to ransom

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (752 days ago)

Isn't everybody in America is an immigrant except for American Indians?

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Isn't everybody in America is an immigrant except for American Indians?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (751 days ago)

I did not immigrate to America. I was born here.

The Native American's must have immigrated to North America. Many hypothesis claim they crossed the ice bridge during the ice age. Life started in Africa. If you're not living in Africa, one of your ancestors immigrated to your country.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

I did not immigrate to America. I was born here.

The Native American's must have immigrated to North America. Many hypothesis claim they crossed the ice bridge during the ice age. Life started in Africa. If you're not living in Africa, one of your ancestors immigrated to your country.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thundercat (751 days ago)

Yes

ReplyVote up (88)down (101)
Original comment

Yes

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (752 days ago)

If the immigrants are all like you, we can divide the total by 3 or 4 as they will have more than one identity.

I'm curious why you feel the need to do it, Cary.

ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment

If the immigrants are all like you, we can divide the total by 3 or 4 as they will have more than one identity.

I'm curious why you feel the need to do it, Cary.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (751 days ago)

Having carefully watched the graphic, I am left to wonder why on earth all the colorful little people balls went straight to Missouri. Do that many immigrants really want to see Wayne Newton in Branson? I'm pretty sure there's nothing else in Missouri.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Having carefully watched the graphic, I am left to wonder why on earth all the colorful little people balls went straight to Missouri. Do that many immigrants really want to see Wayne Newton in Branson? I'm pretty sure there's nothing else in Missouri.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Media responds to The Boring Company's Chicago project
Media responds to The Boring Company's Chicago project
North Korea's plan for tourism has already started
North Korea's plan for tourism has already started
Kīlauea Volcano - Fissure 8 flow to the ocean
Kīlauea Volcano - Fissure 8 flow to the ocean
2018 FIFA World Cup - Portugal vs Spain, the goals
2018 FIFA World Cup - Portugal vs Spain, the goals
James O'Brien - Former UKIP candidate on the cesspit that is London
James O'Brien - Former UKIP candidate on the cesspit that is London