FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Next generation of Australian banknotes

Next generation of Australian banknotes

(1:00) The new security features in Australia's new $5 banknotes. More info: banknotes.rba.gov.au

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
Guest: (533 days ago)

Warning :

This video includes a very brief depiction of the British Queen. This therefore could result in poorly educated Americans venting their naive preconceptions about monarchy, despite it having nothing to do with the fraud-prevention measures of currency.

Attempt to educate them at your peril.

ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment

Warning :

This video includes a very brief depiction of the British Queen. This therefore could result in poorly educated Americans venting their naive preconceptions about monarchy, despite it having nothing to do with the fraud-prevention measures of currency.

Attempt to educate them at your peril.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: funnymehaha (531 days ago)
ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (536 days ago)

Surprising Australia hasn't become independent enough to dump the monarch and finally separate themselves from the control of the UK.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

Surprising Australia hasn't become independent enough to dump the monarch and finally separate themselves from the control of the UK.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (535 days ago)

Surprising USA hasn't managed to escape the control of James Madison et al who have been dead for nearly 200 years. Their archaic and primitive consistution has far more political effect than the British monarch. The poor souls have been hog-tied for centuries.

ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment

Surprising USA hasn't managed to escape the control of James Madison et al who have been dead for nearly 200 years. Their archaic and primitive consistution has far more political effect than the British monarch. The poor souls have been hog-tied for centuries.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (535 days ago)

You misunderstood what the constitution is all about. All countries have laws but our laws have a foundation. The constitution has been created to prevent future congressmen to create laws that take away basic rights such as our freedom of speech. No laws regarding freedom of religion can be created because of our constitution. The Brits have no such protections so I feel sorry for you.

ReplyVote up (101)down (76)
Original comment

You misunderstood what the constitution is all about. All countries have laws but our laws have a foundation. The constitution has been created to prevent future congressmen to create laws that take away basic rights such as our freedom of speech. No laws regarding freedom of religion can be created because of our constitution. The Brits have no such protections so I feel sorry for you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (534 days ago)

Tell us about freedom of speech during the McCarthy era, Cengland0

ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment

Tell us about freedom of speech during the McCarthy era, Cengland0

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (534 days ago)

You misunderstand, unless you're just in denial. The foundation of your laws is an archaic set of ammendments created by people in a radically different time. They are a barrier to any politicians wishing to update their country. I mean your country can't even get an Equal Rights ammendment passed because those people 200 years ago didn't think to include it. At least the UK are responsive - they have gradually reduced the powers of the monarchy, they have responded to gun violence, etc. etc. It's a big shame that the USA cannot do that. And that's protection? Your hands are tied.

ReplyVote up (57)down (101)
Original comment

You misunderstand, unless you're just in denial. The foundation of your laws is an archaic set of ammendments created by people in a radically different time. They are a barrier to any politicians wishing to update their country. I mean your country can't even get an Equal Rights ammendment passed because those people 200 years ago didn't think to include it. At least the UK are responsive - they have gradually reduced the powers of the monarchy, they have responded to gun violence, etc. etc. It's a big shame that the USA cannot do that. And that's protection? Your hands are tied.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (534 days ago)

Our constitution is old but it is not out dated. We change our constitution, as you can see from the ammendments. It's just that it cannot be done by congressmen like regular laws -- it must be ratified by the states.

"They are a barrier to any politicians wishing to update their country" That's the whole point. It does prevent politicians from trying to change any of our fundamental rights or other things in the constitution such as term limits for the president.

"your country can't even get an Equal Rights ammendment passed " Again you misunderstand the purpose of our constitution. That document does not contain all the laws, just laws that are federal and cannot be overwritten by a random politician. Many of the states have their own constitution and they do have an ERA clause. We also have a Civil Rights Act of 1964 that covers it.

"At least the UK are responsive - they have gradually reduced the powers of the monarchy" Show that to me in your constitution. Oh, that's right, you can't.

"they have responded to gun violence" So have we. By the way, you are allowed to own guns in the UK too.

ReplyVote up (101)down (79)
Original comment

Our constitution is old but it is not out dated. We change our constitution, as you can see from the ammendments. It's just that it cannot be done by congressmen like regular laws -- it must be ratified by the states.

"They are a barrier to any politicians wishing to update their country" That's the whole point. It does prevent politicians from trying to change any of our fundamental rights or other things in the constitution such as term limits for the president.

"your country can't even get an Equal Rights ammendment passed " Again you misunderstand the purpose of our constitution. That document does not contain all the laws, just laws that are federal and cannot be overwritten by a random politician. Many of the states have their own constitution and they do have an ERA clause. We also have a Civil Rights Act of 1964 that covers it.

"At least the UK are responsive - they have gradually reduced the powers of the monarchy" Show that to me in your constitution. Oh, that's right, you can't.

"they have responded to gun violence" So have we. By the way, you are allowed to own guns in the UK too.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Minsbiggerthanyours (529 days ago)

We have the right to apply for a gun licence. If the police and magistrate allow such licence then we have the right to own a gun.

In the USA you have the right to own unlicenced guns?

That would be why the death rate from gun incidents is the highest in the developed world.

ReplyVote up (101)down (83)
Original comment

We have the right to apply for a gun licence. If the police and magistrate allow such licence then we have the right to own a gun.

In the USA you have the right to own unlicenced guns?

That would be why the death rate from gun incidents is the highest in the developed world.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (529 days ago)
Latest comment:

Where I live, I don't need a permit and the gun does not need a license. If I want to carry the gun concealed, I will need a permit just while I'm carrying it concealed. But just to keep it in my house, I don't need anything. When I purchased them, the dealer had to call some government agency that did a background check on me. Took about an hour. Since my background did not have anything in it that would exclude me from owning guns, the dealer was able to sell them to me.

Other states may have different laws. In some states, you can open carry guns. Some you need to register your guns.

There are some loopholes that I agree should be plugged. I can sell my gun to anyone I want as a private sale and I don't have to put the buyer through a background check. Also, there are some temporary gun shows that are mobile and go from place to place. You can buy guns there without going through a background check too.

ReplyVote up (101)down (67)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Where I live, I don't need a permit and the gun does not need a license. If I want to carry the gun concealed, I will need a permit just while I'm carrying it concealed. But just to keep it in my house, I don't need anything. When I purchased them, the dealer had to call some government agency that did a background check on me. Took about an hour. Since my background did not have anything in it that would exclude me from owning guns, the dealer was able to sell them to me.

Other states may have different laws. In some states, you can open carry guns. Some you need to register your guns.

There are some loopholes that I agree should be plugged. I can sell my gun to anyone I want as a private sale and I don't have to put the buyer through a background check. Also, there are some temporary gun shows that are mobile and go from place to place. You can buy guns there without going through a background check too.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (534 days ago)

Your constitution is ridiculously outdated and the rest of the world can see that. Why can't you? I can't think of any other (developed) country that is still controlled by what people thought 200 years ago.

It prevents people from getting rid of archaic statutes that are only considered 'rights' because some dead people thought they should be, and your media pumps you full of nationalistic fervour and outright fear every time they are called into question.

No the civil rights act does NOT cover the Equal Rights ammendment. The CVA64 does not guarantee that all the rights of the constution are afforded to male and female citizens. It is just a law - and how disgusting that it can't be enshrined within your precious constitution.

I can easily show you how the UK have reduced the powers of the monarchy in case you don't have access to history books. Just compare the rights of a monarch pre-civil war with the rights of Queen Elizabeth II. Not difficult. We have an uncodified constitution thankfully, which means it can be adapted as the world evolves. Take note.

Yes the UK are allowed to own certain guns under very specific circumstances whereas for example in Utah you can carry a gun concealed or otherwise with no permit, with no waiting period to aquire one. In the UK every time there has been a mass shooting they have been able to adapt immediately and further reduce the opportunity for such tragedies. The USA cannot do that because of your archaic constitution - you are completely hog tied by your own history which is why you are fated to watch generations of your youths being slaughtered without being able to do a thing about it. Wooh 'Murica!

ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment

Your constitution is ridiculously outdated and the rest of the world can see that. Why can't you? I can't think of any other (developed) country that is still controlled by what people thought 200 years ago.

It prevents people from getting rid of archaic statutes that are only considered 'rights' because some dead people thought they should be, and your media pumps you full of nationalistic fervour and outright fear every time they are called into question.

No the civil rights act does NOT cover the Equal Rights ammendment. The CVA64 does not guarantee that all the rights of the constution are afforded to male and female citizens. It is just a law - and how disgusting that it can't be enshrined within your precious constitution.

I can easily show you how the UK have reduced the powers of the monarchy in case you don't have access to history books. Just compare the rights of a monarch pre-civil war with the rights of Queen Elizabeth II. Not difficult. We have an uncodified constitution thankfully, which means it can be adapted as the world evolves. Take note.

Yes the UK are allowed to own certain guns under very specific circumstances whereas for example in Utah you can carry a gun concealed or otherwise with no permit, with no waiting period to aquire one. In the UK every time there has been a mass shooting they have been able to adapt immediately and further reduce the opportunity for such tragedies. The USA cannot do that because of your archaic constitution - you are completely hog tied by your own history which is why you are fated to watch generations of your youths being slaughtered without being able to do a thing about it. Wooh 'Murica!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (534 days ago)

"still controlled by what people thought 200 years ago." You really don't see it do you? Your Magna Carta is older than our constitution so why don't you throw that document away? It's not the age of the document that would make it out-dated, it would be the inability to maintain it for issues that come up in the future. We have 27 ammendments to our constitution so it shows that we can modify it. How many times have you modified your Magna Carta?

"No the civil rights act does NOT cover the Equal Rights ammendment. The CVA64 does not guarantee that all the rights of the constution are afforded to male and female citizens. It is just a law " A law is good enough. Not all of our laws are in the constitution. The minimum wage law, for example, is not in there. Don't know what point you're trying to make but whatever it is you're failing at it miserably. If you keep on bringing up laws that are not in the constitution as some way to show it's out dated, then you are don't understand any of it.

"I can easily show you how the UK have reduced the powers of the monarchy in case you don't have access to history books." That's what I asked for so please show me.

ReplyVote up (101)down (74)
Original comment

"still controlled by what people thought 200 years ago." You really don't see it do you? Your Magna Carta is older than our constitution so why don't you throw that document away? It's not the age of the document that would make it out-dated, it would be the inability to maintain it for issues that come up in the future. We have 27 ammendments to our constitution so it shows that we can modify it. How many times have you modified your Magna Carta?

"No the civil rights act does NOT cover the Equal Rights ammendment. The CVA64 does not guarantee that all the rights of the constution are afforded to male and female citizens. It is just a law " A law is good enough. Not all of our laws are in the constitution. The minimum wage law, for example, is not in there. Don't know what point you're trying to make but whatever it is you're failing at it miserably. If you keep on bringing up laws that are not in the constitution as some way to show it's out dated, then you are don't understand any of it.

"I can easily show you how the UK have reduced the powers of the monarchy in case you don't have access to history books." That's what I asked for so please show me.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (533 days ago)

We're still waiting for you to telll us about freedom of speech in the McCarthy era - or does that not fit in with your belief that America is the new Eden?

ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment

We're still waiting for you to telll us about freedom of speech in the McCarthy era - or does that not fit in with your belief that America is the new Eden?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (533 days ago)

Didn't know much about the McCarthy subject so I looked it up. Are you referring to Senator McCarthy and him trying to find any military person that was a communist? If so, I don't see how that has anything to do with how much power your Queen has.

ReplyVote up (101)down (72)
Original comment

Didn't know much about the McCarthy subject so I looked it up. Are you referring to Senator McCarthy and him trying to find any military person that was a communist? If so, I don't see how that has anything to do with how much power your Queen has.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Minsbiggerthanyours (532 days ago)

I think that if you check again, it wasn't just the military. It was EVERY BODY. Actors for example, were black listed and couldn't work. I could go on but you are tedious and I would rather get some shut eye. Good night.

ReplyVote up (101)down (79)
Original comment

I think that if you check again, it wasn't just the military. It was EVERY BODY. Actors for example, were black listed and couldn't work. I could go on but you are tedious and I would rather get some shut eye. Good night.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (533 days ago)

A serious lack of knowledge there, and yet I have seen people explain such historical facts to you before. Are you wilfully ignorant or forgetful?

Historical point number one: Yes, the Magna Carta is older than your constitution. When it was written it had 67 clauses. We now use 3. So yes, we have modified it - or at least cherry picked it with increasing scrutiny, to enable us to stay with the times. This is such a basic historical point. The British use of the Magna Carta is the perfect example of how something very old can be changed to fit in with the era - the very opposite of your outdated constitution. You picked the worst example possible.

Historical point number two: 10 of the amendments you are listing were part of the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments, all adopted at the same time a year after the constitution was ratified. Since then, in the 200 years, you have managed to alter this archaic document 17 times. Utterly ridiculous.

Wait, a law IS good enough? You're a tangle of contradictions. If a law is good enough, drop the whole ancient constitution and use laws. You're welcome.

I didn't particularly want to show you how the powers of the monarchy have been reduced, because it's something we teach primary school kids in this country. However, you didn't know about the clauses of the Magna Carta, and you didn't seem to understand the Bill of Rights, so here we go:

-Pre-Magna Carta the monarch had the right to imprison a citizen without charge (still the case in the USA), the monarch was above the law, and the monarch could force taxes on their citizens without having them represented politically. We changed that with the MC, and you liked it so much you used our system as the fundamental basis for your government.
-Before 1628, the monarch still had the right to levy whatever taxes so long as there was representation - with the Petition of Rights, we changed that so all taxes were levied by parliament.
-Pre-Civil War, the monarch still had the right to dismiss an entire Parliament without a mandate and rule without them, and to try people in a private court (and countless other 'rights') - and he tried to overstep the controls put on the monarchy - he was executed as a result.
-Before the 'Glorious Revolution', the monarch in practice still had the right to create whatever laws they saw fit - we brought in the Coronation Oath Act in 1688 and that changed.
-The very next year, with the English Bill of Rights, we ensured that laws would not be dismissed by the monarchy without Parliament's consent, and that the monarchy couldn't interfere with Parliament's elections.
-And so on and so on. This gradual shrinking of a monarch's rights has continued to recent years; even in 2011 we brought in the Fixed Term Parliaments act which means instead of an election whenever the Queen dissolves parliament, there would be a fixed time scale that excluded her from the process.

All that information was available for you online, by the way. So as you can see, the UK has a long history of adapting and changing, and utilising its past without being hampered by it. Watch and learn, dear cousin.

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

A serious lack of knowledge there, and yet I have seen people explain such historical facts to you before. Are you wilfully ignorant or forgetful?

Historical point number one: Yes, the Magna Carta is older than your constitution. When it was written it had 67 clauses. We now use 3. So yes, we have modified it - or at least cherry picked it with increasing scrutiny, to enable us to stay with the times. This is such a basic historical point. The British use of the Magna Carta is the perfect example of how something very old can be changed to fit in with the era - the very opposite of your outdated constitution. You picked the worst example possible.

Historical point number two: 10 of the amendments you are listing were part of the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments, all adopted at the same time a year after the constitution was ratified. Since then, in the 200 years, you have managed to alter this archaic document 17 times. Utterly ridiculous.

Wait, a law IS good enough? You're a tangle of contradictions. If a law is good enough, drop the whole ancient constitution and use laws. You're welcome.

I didn't particularly want to show you how the powers of the monarchy have been reduced, because it's something we teach primary school kids in this country. However, you didn't know about the clauses of the Magna Carta, and you didn't seem to understand the Bill of Rights, so here we go:

-Pre-Magna Carta the monarch had the right to imprison a citizen without charge (still the case in the USA), the monarch was above the law, and the monarch could force taxes on their citizens without having them represented politically. We changed that with the MC, and you liked it so much you used our system as the fundamental basis for your government.
-Before 1628, the monarch still had the right to levy whatever taxes so long as there was representation - with the Petition of Rights, we changed that so all taxes were levied by parliament.
-Pre-Civil War, the monarch still had the right to dismiss an entire Parliament without a mandate and rule without them, and to try people in a private court (and countless other 'rights') - and he tried to overstep the controls put on the monarchy - he was executed as a result.
-Before the 'Glorious Revolution', the monarch in practice still had the right to create whatever laws they saw fit - we brought in the Coronation Oath Act in 1688 and that changed.
-The very next year, with the English Bill of Rights, we ensured that laws would not be dismissed by the monarchy without Parliament's consent, and that the monarchy couldn't interfere with Parliament's elections.
-And so on and so on. This gradual shrinking of a monarch's rights has continued to recent years; even in 2011 we brought in the Fixed Term Parliaments act which means instead of an election whenever the Queen dissolves parliament, there would be a fixed time scale that excluded her from the process.

All that information was available for you online, by the way. So as you can see, the UK has a long history of adapting and changing, and utilising its past without being hampered by it. Watch and learn, dear cousin.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (533 days ago)

"Yes, the Magna Carta is older than your constitution. When it was written it had 67 clauses. We now use 3" How were those changes ratified? Oh, it wasn't. It was just politicians that created the Statute Laws Revision Act of 1856,1861, and 1863. Ours cannot be changed that easily as we want representation from all our states and 3/4ths of them must agree with the change. The Magna Carta was not changed.

"I didn't particularly want to show you how the powers of the monarchy have been reduced, because it's something we teach primary school kids in this country." I think it's because you cannot show me and that's why you didn't.

"However, you didn't know about the clauses of the Magna Carta" The Magna Carta hasn't been changed. There were some laws that did away with some of the old clauses but the original document remains the same. Our constitution changes with Amendments and each amendment has an entire process it must go through before it gets ratified.

"you didn't seem to understand the Bill of Rights," You made an incorrect assumption. I do understand that.

"Pre-Magna Carta the monarch had the right to imprison a citizen without charge (still the case in the USA)" In the USA, imprision, no. Held for 24 hours for questioning, yes but and any longer requires a charge. The weird part is during that 24 hours, you have the right to remain silent so they can ask all the questions they want but you don't have to answer.

"the monarch was above the law" Still is.

" monarch could force taxes on their citizens without having them represented politically. We changed that with the MC". That didn't work very well did it? That is one of the many grievances we had against King George. Remember the Boston Tea Party? That was post MC.

"-Pre-Civil War, the monarch still had the right to dismiss an entire Parliament without a mandate and rule without them, and to try people in a private court (and countless other 'rights') - and he tried to overstep the controls put on the monarchy - he was executed as a result. " Civil war and execution doesn't mean the power was taken away. Your queen can still dismiss the Prime Minister. Since she is the monarch, she can do anything that isn't against your unwritten constitution and there are many scholars that think she could dissolve parliment too. She probably wouldn't but nothing prohibts her from doing so.

"The very next year, with the English Bill of Rights, we ensured that laws would not be dismissed by the monarchy without Parliament's consent," The Queen's consent is needed before a law can even be debated in parliment. Then, royal assent is granted after the law is passed through Parliment. So I don't see any reason why she would want to dismiss a law she approved.

"whenever the Queen dissolves parliament" See, you even agree that the queen can dissolve parliament.

ReplyVote up (101)down (59)
Original comment

"Yes, the Magna Carta is older than your constitution. When it was written it had 67 clauses. We now use 3" How were those changes ratified? Oh, it wasn't. It was just politicians that created the Statute Laws Revision Act of 1856,1861, and 1863. Ours cannot be changed that easily as we want representation from all our states and 3/4ths of them must agree with the change. The Magna Carta was not changed.

"I didn't particularly want to show you how the powers of the monarchy have been reduced, because it's something we teach primary school kids in this country." I think it's because you cannot show me and that's why you didn't.

"However, you didn't know about the clauses of the Magna Carta" The Magna Carta hasn't been changed. There were some laws that did away with some of the old clauses but the original document remains the same. Our constitution changes with Amendments and each amendment has an entire process it must go through before it gets ratified.

"you didn't seem to understand the Bill of Rights," You made an incorrect assumption. I do understand that.

"Pre-Magna Carta the monarch had the right to imprison a citizen without charge (still the case in the USA)" In the USA, imprision, no. Held for 24 hours for questioning, yes but and any longer requires a charge. The weird part is during that 24 hours, you have the right to remain silent so they can ask all the questions they want but you don't have to answer.

"the monarch was above the law" Still is.

" monarch could force taxes on their citizens without having them represented politically. We changed that with the MC". That didn't work very well did it? That is one of the many grievances we had against King George. Remember the Boston Tea Party? That was post MC.

"-Pre-Civil War, the monarch still had the right to dismiss an entire Parliament without a mandate and rule without them, and to try people in a private court (and countless other 'rights') - and he tried to overstep the controls put on the monarchy - he was executed as a result. " Civil war and execution doesn't mean the power was taken away. Your queen can still dismiss the Prime Minister. Since she is the monarch, she can do anything that isn't against your unwritten constitution and there are many scholars that think she could dissolve parliment too. She probably wouldn't but nothing prohibts her from doing so.

"The very next year, with the English Bill of Rights, we ensured that laws would not be dismissed by the monarchy without Parliament's consent," The Queen's consent is needed before a law can even be debated in parliment. Then, royal assent is granted after the law is passed through Parliment. So I don't see any reason why she would want to dismiss a law she approved.

"whenever the Queen dissolves parliament" See, you even agree that the queen can dissolve parliament.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (533 days ago)

The use of the Magna Carta was changed dramatically, because such an old document obviously cannot remain so relevant as time goes by. Dropping 64 clauses is a BIG change. All changes are approved by representative assembly - that's the equivalent of ratification. Can you explain how the use of the US constitution has changed?

Honestly, if you cannot see how the British monarchy has changed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy, and the wide-sweeping differences implicated in that shift, and the seismic changes in governance and attitudes, you really are too foolish to try and teach. It's a profound and fundamental difference, and not a difficult one to understand.

The monarch is not above the law, nor above the constitution. She isn't an absolute monarch. It's just that she cannot be prosecuted by herself in a 'Crown' court, meaning you have to form petition of right or by suit against the Attorney General for a declaration. Basically, you have to take them out of office to prosecute, which is funnily enough is precisely the same as the USA.

No assumption - you have shown that you obviously don't understand the Bill of Rights, because you cited ten of its fundamental original amendments as evidence to show how it can be modified, even though they were created at the same time. D'oh! In your headless chicken defence of the constitution you even let slip how laws are good enough! Hilarious.

Your president has the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain anyone who he decides is linked to terrorism - no trial, no due process. All they need to do is to say 'Yes, that person was a terrorist' and chumps like you lap it up and grant him that unadultered and unaccountable power. No jury involved, no democracy.

The taxes that the colonies were opposing were not levied by King George, they were levied through the parliament through the Stamp Act. You might think they were unfair, but it was a government, not a monarch who demanded them. Good grief. Again, such ignorance, even about your own country.

Seriously? You don't think executing a monarch and imposing a military dictatorship means the power was taken away? Oh Jesus. If the Queen dismissed our PM without a mandate, just as when King Charles tried to dismiss his parliament, there would be societal consequences that would bring them in line. It's the largely through the inadvised flexing of monarch muscles that has caused the decline in their powers.

Laws. Wrong. Seriously, just use Google and spare me the time. I'm not going into the difference between proposals, draft bills, green papers, white papers, etc. but suffice to say that prospective laws can be and are debated in parliament all the time without Royal Assent. That only comes in when ministers have agreed, and it is decided between both chambers, and submitted as a Bill.

Read it again, I said "INSTEAD of an election whenever the Queen dissolves parliament, there would be a fixed time scale that excluded her from the process". In other words, it's now a fixed term for elections and has nothing to do with the Queen. Anyway, I've seen people try and explain the difference between ceremonial power and political power to you before. You didn't understand it then so I won't try my luck. I seriously hope you haven't graduated yet because your lack of knowledge and critical thinking is alarming.

No, it isn't just my opinion that USA has less freedom than the UK and most other developed countries. According to the annual research of 'Freedom in the World', the USA ranks worse than the UK on both political rights and civil liberties ( LINK ) . In terms of freedom of the press you're even worse - the internationally recognised 'Press Freedom Index' ranks the USA 41st. LINK - again, that's behind the UK. Your actions against whistleblowers and failure to allow journalists to protect their sources is a way of controlling freedom of speech. But sure, your beloved constitution says you have it, so it must be true right? Born yesterday. No wonder people like Trump get in.

ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment

The use of the Magna Carta was changed dramatically, because such an old document obviously cannot remain so relevant as time goes by. Dropping 64 clauses is a BIG change. All changes are approved by representative assembly - that's the equivalent of ratification. Can you explain how the use of the US constitution has changed?

Honestly, if you cannot see how the British monarchy has changed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy, and the wide-sweeping differences implicated in that shift, and the seismic changes in governance and attitudes, you really are too foolish to try and teach. It's a profound and fundamental difference, and not a difficult one to understand.

The monarch is not above the law, nor above the constitution. She isn't an absolute monarch. It's just that she cannot be prosecuted by herself in a 'Crown' court, meaning you have to form petition of right or by suit against the Attorney General for a declaration. Basically, you have to take them out of office to prosecute, which is funnily enough is precisely the same as the USA.

No assumption - you have shown that you obviously don't understand the Bill of Rights, because you cited ten of its fundamental original amendments as evidence to show how it can be modified, even though they were created at the same time. D'oh! In your headless chicken defence of the constitution you even let slip how laws are good enough! Hilarious.

Your president has the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain anyone who he decides is linked to terrorism - no trial, no due process. All they need to do is to say 'Yes, that person was a terrorist' and chumps like you lap it up and grant him that unadultered and unaccountable power. No jury involved, no democracy.

The taxes that the colonies were opposing were not levied by King George, they were levied through the parliament through the Stamp Act. You might think they were unfair, but it was a government, not a monarch who demanded them. Good grief. Again, such ignorance, even about your own country.

Seriously? You don't think executing a monarch and imposing a military dictatorship means the power was taken away? Oh Jesus. If the Queen dismissed our PM without a mandate, just as when King Charles tried to dismiss his parliament, there would be societal consequences that would bring them in line. It's the largely through the inadvised flexing of monarch muscles that has caused the decline in their powers.

Laws. Wrong. Seriously, just use Google and spare me the time. I'm not going into the difference between proposals, draft bills, green papers, white papers, etc. but suffice to say that prospective laws can be and are debated in parliament all the time without Royal Assent. That only comes in when ministers have agreed, and it is decided between both chambers, and submitted as a Bill.

Read it again, I said "INSTEAD of an election whenever the Queen dissolves parliament, there would be a fixed time scale that excluded her from the process". In other words, it's now a fixed term for elections and has nothing to do with the Queen. Anyway, I've seen people try and explain the difference between ceremonial power and political power to you before. You didn't understand it then so I won't try my luck. I seriously hope you haven't graduated yet because your lack of knowledge and critical thinking is alarming.

No, it isn't just my opinion that USA has less freedom than the UK and most other developed countries. According to the annual research of 'Freedom in the World', the USA ranks worse than the UK on both political rights and civil liberties ( LINK ) . In terms of freedom of the press you're even worse - the internationally recognised 'Press Freedom Index' ranks the USA 41st. LINK - again, that's behind the UK. Your actions against whistleblowers and failure to allow journalists to protect their sources is a way of controlling freedom of speech. But sure, your beloved constitution says you have it, so it must be true right? Born yesterday. No wonder people like Trump get in.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (533 days ago)

"All changes are approved by representative assembly - that's the equivalent of ratification." It is ratified but you still didn't change the Magna Carta. You just created other laws that conflict with it and you need to know what the most recent version of the law is. 3/4ths of our states need to ratify our amendments, which is a much larger representation than your few representatives that could get nearly anything passed.

"Can you explain how the use of the US constitution has changed?" The constitution has changed but its use has not. Whenever a lawmaker creates a new law or changes an old one, they must refer back to the constitution to make sure it doesn't conflict with anything inside it. Otherwise, it will be challenged by the Supreme Court. The UK can create conflicting laws all you want and you have done so.

"Honestly, if you cannot see how the British monarchy has changed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy," You don't even have a constitution. Yours is uncodified.

"because you cited ten of its fundamental original amendments as evidence to show how it can be modified" I told you how many amendments we have and that was correct information. The bills of rights were broken down into 10 individual amendments and I didn't feel the need to go through that with you as it was not relevant. But if you wish to know, it was better to do it that way so if one part doesn't get ratified, it doesn’t stall the entire process. You can still change the constitutions with the other 9. In this case, all 10 were ratified so it wasn't a problem.

One problem we have with our lawmakers is that they combine "ear marks" to bills as they try to send them through congress. Those earmarks don't have anything to do with the original bill but are there as an incentive to get a senator or representative to vote for it. An earmark can also cause a bill to be rejected so nothing gets passed. It's sometimes better to introduce smaller bills with things everyone agrees on and get those out of the way and then try to pass the more controversial ones later. We tried to get a line-item-veto bill passed but it didn't make it. This is probably why it was broken down in to 10 separate amendments. Also, the right to bear arms is vastly different than freedom of religion so it makes sense to be in a different amendment anyway.

"you even let slip how laws are good enough!" They are. Not being able to murder someone is not in the constitution either. Again, you fail to understand the purpose of the constitution. Laws are not allowed to be broken either. The constitution is just there to prohibit a lawmaker from creating a law that would be against our fundamental ideals.

"Your president has the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain anyone who he decides is linked to terrorism" Not if they are a citizen inside the USA. If you are a terrorist outside the USA, you should be scared because we are at war with them.

"The taxes that the colonies were opposing were not levied by King George, they were levied through the parliament through the Stamp Act. " and we as the colonies did not have representation on that so it falls into "Taxation without representation." And if it was the same back then, the King would have had to consent to it being discussed through parliament and then show his Assent when it passed.

"You don't think executing a monarch and imposing a military dictatorship means the power was taken away?" Do you think when Kennedy or Lincoln was killed, that meant power from future presidents was taken away?

"If the Queen dismissed our PM without a mandate, just as when King Charles tried to dismiss his parliament, there would be societal consequences that would bring them in line." Possibly true but she still has the power and you are still in denial. Your say the monarch doesn't have power only because the people would revolt but that is a bogus reason. She still has the power regardless if you like it or not.

"laws can be and are debated in parliament all the time without Royal Assent." I didn't say Assent, I said Consent. It's Assent only after it passed parliament.

"According to the annual research of 'Freedom in the World', the USA ranks worse than the UK on both political rights and civil liberties" First, realize that our countries are very close in terms of scores in both links. The first link you provided does not give any specifics so it's worthless. The second link mentions problems with whistleblowers in the USA. That is so wrong and I whole-heartedly disagree. They were not whistleblowers, they were leakers. When people get security clearance, they swear an oath to keep the knowledge secret. They are told what will happen if they do not. They are also notified of the proper channels to escalate issues. That escalation process does not mean revealing top secret information to the media. That is illegal and prosecuted. I wonder what would happen if one of your people with top secret information leaked information out. Would they become a hero in your country and no other legal ramifications? You probably don't know because it hasn't happened yet (as far as I know).

In the USA, Freedom of speech doesn't include slander, libel, threats to kill someone, publishing top secret information, or words to cause panic or fear (such as yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire). You can be prosecuted for those and you should be. I don't have any sympathy for the likes of Snowden.

ReplyVote up (101)down (61)
Original comment

"All changes are approved by representative assembly - that's the equivalent of ratification." It is ratified but you still didn't change the Magna Carta. You just created other laws that conflict with it and you need to know what the most recent version of the law is. 3/4ths of our states need to ratify our amendments, which is a much larger representation than your few representatives that could get nearly anything passed.

"Can you explain how the use of the US constitution has changed?" The constitution has changed but its use has not. Whenever a lawmaker creates a new law or changes an old one, they must refer back to the constitution to make sure it doesn't conflict with anything inside it. Otherwise, it will be challenged by the Supreme Court. The UK can create conflicting laws all you want and you have done so.

"Honestly, if you cannot see how the British monarchy has changed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy," You don't even have a constitution. Yours is uncodified.

"because you cited ten of its fundamental original amendments as evidence to show how it can be modified" I told you how many amendments we have and that was correct information. The bills of rights were broken down into 10 individual amendments and I didn't feel the need to go through that with you as it was not relevant. But if you wish to know, it was better to do it that way so if one part doesn't get ratified, it doesn’t stall the entire process. You can still change the constitutions with the other 9. In this case, all 10 were ratified so it wasn't a problem.

One problem we have with our lawmakers is that they combine "ear marks" to bills as they try to send them through congress. Those earmarks don't have anything to do with the original bill but are there as an incentive to get a senator or representative to vote for it. An earmark can also cause a bill to be rejected so nothing gets passed. It's sometimes better to introduce smaller bills with things everyone agrees on and get those out of the way and then try to pass the more controversial ones later. We tried to get a line-item-veto bill passed but it didn't make it. This is probably why it was broken down in to 10 separate amendments. Also, the right to bear arms is vastly different than freedom of religion so it makes sense to be in a different amendment anyway.

"you even let slip how laws are good enough!" They are. Not being able to murder someone is not in the constitution either. Again, you fail to understand the purpose of the constitution. Laws are not allowed to be broken either. The constitution is just there to prohibit a lawmaker from creating a law that would be against our fundamental ideals.

"Your president has the right to assassinate or indefinitely detain anyone who he decides is linked to terrorism" Not if they are a citizen inside the USA. If you are a terrorist outside the USA, you should be scared because we are at war with them.

"The taxes that the colonies were opposing were not levied by King George, they were levied through the parliament through the Stamp Act. " and we as the colonies did not have representation on that so it falls into "Taxation without representation." And if it was the same back then, the King would have had to consent to it being discussed through parliament and then show his Assent when it passed.

"You don't think executing a monarch and imposing a military dictatorship means the power was taken away?" Do you think when Kennedy or Lincoln was killed, that meant power from future presidents was taken away?

"If the Queen dismissed our PM without a mandate, just as when King Charles tried to dismiss his parliament, there would be societal consequences that would bring them in line." Possibly true but she still has the power and you are still in denial. Your say the monarch doesn't have power only because the people would revolt but that is a bogus reason. She still has the power regardless if you like it or not.

"laws can be and are debated in parliament all the time without Royal Assent." I didn't say Assent, I said Consent. It's Assent only after it passed parliament.

"According to the annual research of 'Freedom in the World', the USA ranks worse than the UK on both political rights and civil liberties" First, realize that our countries are very close in terms of scores in both links. The first link you provided does not give any specifics so it's worthless. The second link mentions problems with whistleblowers in the USA. That is so wrong and I whole-heartedly disagree. They were not whistleblowers, they were leakers. When people get security clearance, they swear an oath to keep the knowledge secret. They are told what will happen if they do not. They are also notified of the proper channels to escalate issues. That escalation process does not mean revealing top secret information to the media. That is illegal and prosecuted. I wonder what would happen if one of your people with top secret information leaked information out. Would they become a hero in your country and no other legal ramifications? You probably don't know because it hasn't happened yet (as far as I know).

In the USA, Freedom of speech doesn't include slander, libel, threats to kill someone, publishing top secret information, or words to cause panic or fear (such as yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire). You can be prosecuted for those and you should be. I don't have any sympathy for the likes of Snowden.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (533 days ago)

"You don't even have a constitution. Yours is uncodified." Our what?

We've created laws that conflicted with the Magna Carta but that doesn't matter - we are informed rather than constrained by our historical legislation, whereas you are the opposite. Besides, we're getting into semantics; the original Magna Carta document wasn't changed because it couldn't be - similarly, your original constitution (written on parchment ) couldn't be changed - It just had a tiny number of additions added to it.

Your problem is that your archaic constitution has been incredibly hard to update since its creation, and doesn't allow you to bring in updated ideals. You included the original ten amendments to give an inaccurate image of how much it has been changed, even though they were not changed retrospectively. Try again.

"The constitution is just there to prohibit a lawmaker from creating a law that would be against our fundamental ideals." So it's not a fundamental ideal that both genders should be treated equally? It's not a fundamental ideal to not be taxed without representation? It's not a fundamental right that NO one should deny you freedom of speech (rather than just congress)? It's not a fundamental ideal that you should be presumed innocent until proven guilty? None of those are core values to you? What a noble country.

"If you are a terrorist outside the USA, you should be scared because we are at war with them." Get ready for a revelation. What if not everyone that was described by your government as a terrorist was actually a terrorist? What if, in the same way as our monarch could apparently turn evil and destroy our country, your president could have ulterior motives too? What if they could assassinate anyone they wanted, included their own citizens, simply by calling them a terrorist and denying them a trial? Considering your amusing cynicism towards the British Queen, you're incredibly naive when it comes to your own country.

"And if it was the same back then, the King would have had to consent to it being discussed through parliament and then show his Assent when it passed." Sure, but your point used to be that the King was unfairly levying taxes without restriction. I've shown you that the taxes had originated from the democratic British parliament, and not some monstrous absolutist dictator. Do you want to change your point again maybe?

"Do you think when Kennedy or Lincoln was killed, that meant power from future presidents was taken away?" No, but then again I can't remember the military dictatorship that replaced their presidencies. If there had been such a thing, then yes, there might be no future presidents and no power.

"Your say the monarch doesn't have power only because the people would revolt but that is a bogus reason." It's not a bogus reason, it's a provable and historic reason. The fact is, certain 'rights' that a monarch supposedly has are unenforcable without parliamentary or public support so are not used. No, I don't think the monarch has no power; I believe they have great ceremonial power. That is why the UK has some of the best international relations of any developed country - a status that the USA couldn't dream of. But she (and her immediate predecessors) have taken pains to remain a-political and not to exercise any of the more obscure powers, because she knew that if she did that would end the monarchy in the UK. So long as her duties remain ceremonial, most of us are happy having an a-political figurehead. After-all, just because someone puts a gold medal around an athlete's neck doesn't mean they have the power to choose who wins the race.

"Laws can be and are debated in parliament all the time without Royal Assent." I didn't say Assent, I said Consent." My point remains. The Queen does not give consent for parliamentary debate of white papers, green papers, draft bills, etc. Complete nonsense.

I was on tenterhooks to find out the reasons why you would be unconvinced from extensive internationally respected research. I'm curious, can you feel yourself doing it? Whenever you're clutching at straws not to accept a comprehensive amount of data in preference to your unprovable inclinations, you could contemplate the possibility that you're wrong. 'Freedom in the World' gives plenty of specifics, from gerrymandering to financial corruption. I guess you didn't bother reading that far because it didn't confirm your bias. Their site has even more information. And as long as your government are keen to be incredibly hostile to any whistleblower, including those that many allies think are not a threat, then it discourages certain forms of freedom of speech. Please show me the international polls relating to freedom of the press or freedom of speech where the USA comes near the top. I realise that the UK and the USA have relatively similar results, but if you're correct that the UK is crippled under the ruthless dictatorship of an unelected tyrant, and the USA is truly the land of the free and the home of the brave, I would expect a huge discrepancy in the other direction. Wouldn't you?

ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment

"You don't even have a constitution. Yours is uncodified." Our what?

We've created laws that conflicted with the Magna Carta but that doesn't matter - we are informed rather than constrained by our historical legislation, whereas you are the opposite. Besides, we're getting into semantics; the original Magna Carta document wasn't changed because it couldn't be - similarly, your original constitution (written on parchment ) couldn't be changed - It just had a tiny number of additions added to it.

Your problem is that your archaic constitution has been incredibly hard to update since its creation, and doesn't allow you to bring in updated ideals. You included the original ten amendments to give an inaccurate image of how much it has been changed, even though they were not changed retrospectively. Try again.

"The constitution is just there to prohibit a lawmaker from creating a law that would be against our fundamental ideals." So it's not a fundamental ideal that both genders should be treated equally? It's not a fundamental ideal to not be taxed without representation? It's not a fundamental right that NO one should deny you freedom of speech (rather than just congress)? It's not a fundamental ideal that you should be presumed innocent until proven guilty? None of those are core values to you? What a noble country.

"If you are a terrorist outside the USA, you should be scared because we are at war with them." Get ready for a revelation. What if not everyone that was described by your government as a terrorist was actually a terrorist? What if, in the same way as our monarch could apparently turn evil and destroy our country, your president could have ulterior motives too? What if they could assassinate anyone they wanted, included their own citizens, simply by calling them a terrorist and denying them a trial? Considering your amusing cynicism towards the British Queen, you're incredibly naive when it comes to your own country.

"And if it was the same back then, the King would have had to consent to it being discussed through parliament and then show his Assent when it passed." Sure, but your point used to be that the King was unfairly levying taxes without restriction. I've shown you that the taxes had originated from the democratic British parliament, and not some monstrous absolutist dictator. Do you want to change your point again maybe?

"Do you think when Kennedy or Lincoln was killed, that meant power from future presidents was taken away?" No, but then again I can't remember the military dictatorship that replaced their presidencies. If there had been such a thing, then yes, there might be no future presidents and no power.

"Your say the monarch doesn't have power only because the people would revolt but that is a bogus reason." It's not a bogus reason, it's a provable and historic reason. The fact is, certain 'rights' that a monarch supposedly has are unenforcable without parliamentary or public support so are not used. No, I don't think the monarch has no power; I believe they have great ceremonial power. That is why the UK has some of the best international relations of any developed country - a status that the USA couldn't dream of. But she (and her immediate predecessors) have taken pains to remain a-political and not to exercise any of the more obscure powers, because she knew that if she did that would end the monarchy in the UK. So long as her duties remain ceremonial, most of us are happy having an a-political figurehead. After-all, just because someone puts a gold medal around an athlete's neck doesn't mean they have the power to choose who wins the race.

"Laws can be and are debated in parliament all the time without Royal Assent." I didn't say Assent, I said Consent." My point remains. The Queen does not give consent for parliamentary debate of white papers, green papers, draft bills, etc. Complete nonsense.

I was on tenterhooks to find out the reasons why you would be unconvinced from extensive internationally respected research. I'm curious, can you feel yourself doing it? Whenever you're clutching at straws not to accept a comprehensive amount of data in preference to your unprovable inclinations, you could contemplate the possibility that you're wrong. 'Freedom in the World' gives plenty of specifics, from gerrymandering to financial corruption. I guess you didn't bother reading that far because it didn't confirm your bias. Their site has even more information. And as long as your government are keen to be incredibly hostile to any whistleblower, including those that many allies think are not a threat, then it discourages certain forms of freedom of speech. Please show me the international polls relating to freedom of the press or freedom of speech where the USA comes near the top. I realise that the UK and the USA have relatively similar results, but if you're correct that the UK is crippled under the ruthless dictatorship of an unelected tyrant, and the USA is truly the land of the free and the home of the brave, I would expect a huge discrepancy in the other direction. Wouldn't you?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (533 days ago)

"the original Magna Carta document wasn't changed because it couldn't be - similarly, your original constitution (written on parchment ) couldn't be changed " Incorrect. We changed our original constitution. Our document is still called the Constitution but the context has been modified. We didn't physically write over the original parchment but that doesnt mean it wasn't updated.

"So it's not a fundamental ideal that both genders should be treated equally?" Yes and we have laws to give everyone equal treatment.

"It's not a fundamental ideal to not be taxed without representation? It's not a fundamental right that NO one should deny you freedom of speech (rather than just congress)? It's not a fundamental ideal that you should be presumed innocent until proven guilty?" All those are covered in our constitution. Regarding taxes, congress is responsible for levying taxes and we elect our representatives.

"What if, in the same way as our monarch could apparently turn evil and destroy our country, your president could have ulterior motives too? " Our President has very little power alone. He is in control of the military and can veto bills. He can appoint cabinet members and supreme court justices. Other than that, there's not much power. He cannot change the laws or do anything to take over the country. We have three branches of government with equal power to prevent one branch from gaining too much power.

We are so against royalty that we have written it into our constitution that the United States will not grant titles of nobility -- ever.

"simply by calling them a terrorist and denying them a trial?" You are confusing war time with rights of the citizens again. When you're at war, you can hold prisoners without trial. If the government captures a USA citizen inside the USA, they must give them a trial if they plan on holding them.

"no, but then again I can't remember the military dictatorship that replaced their presidencies." That's because our constitution has a list of people that take over if the President dies. First it's the Vice President, and then the Speaker of the House. All those people were elected by the people. Yours is born into the postion if your Queen dies and was not elected.

"I believe they have great ceremonial power. That is why the UK has some of the best international relations of any developed country - a status that the USA couldn't dream of." Why don't you just get rid of your monarchy altogether if they have no power? Why pay for a service that is completely ceremonial? Answer: because she does have power.

Regarding the international relations, we have good relations too. It's just your opinion that yours is better.

"My point remains. The Queen does not give consent for parliamentary debate of white papers, green papers, draft bills, etc." "Blocking debate been exercised at least 39 times, according to documents released under the Freedom of Information act, including one instance [in which] the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament,"

ReplyVote up (101)down (63)
Original comment

"the original Magna Carta document wasn't changed because it couldn't be - similarly, your original constitution (written on parchment ) couldn't be changed " Incorrect. We changed our original constitution. Our document is still called the Constitution but the context has been modified. We didn't physically write over the original parchment but that doesnt mean it wasn't updated.

"So it's not a fundamental ideal that both genders should be treated equally?" Yes and we have laws to give everyone equal treatment.

"It's not a fundamental ideal to not be taxed without representation? It's not a fundamental right that NO one should deny you freedom of speech (rather than just congress)? It's not a fundamental ideal that you should be presumed innocent until proven guilty?" All those are covered in our constitution. Regarding taxes, congress is responsible for levying taxes and we elect our representatives.

"What if, in the same way as our monarch could apparently turn evil and destroy our country, your president could have ulterior motives too? " Our President has very little power alone. He is in control of the military and can veto bills. He can appoint cabinet members and supreme court justices. Other than that, there's not much power. He cannot change the laws or do anything to take over the country. We have three branches of government with equal power to prevent one branch from gaining too much power.

We are so against royalty that we have written it into our constitution that the United States will not grant titles of nobility -- ever.

"simply by calling them a terrorist and denying them a trial?" You are confusing war time with rights of the citizens again. When you're at war, you can hold prisoners without trial. If the government captures a USA citizen inside the USA, they must give them a trial if they plan on holding them.

"no, but then again I can't remember the military dictatorship that replaced their presidencies." That's because our constitution has a list of people that take over if the President dies. First it's the Vice President, and then the Speaker of the House. All those people were elected by the people. Yours is born into the postion if your Queen dies and was not elected.

"I believe they have great ceremonial power. That is why the UK has some of the best international relations of any developed country - a status that the USA couldn't dream of." Why don't you just get rid of your monarchy altogether if they have no power? Why pay for a service that is completely ceremonial? Answer: because she does have power.

Regarding the international relations, we have good relations too. It's just your opinion that yours is better.

"My point remains. The Queen does not give consent for parliamentary debate of white papers, green papers, draft bills, etc." "Blocking debate been exercised at least 39 times, according to documents released under the Freedom of Information act, including one instance [in which] the Queen completely vetoed the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, a private member's bill that sought to transfer the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to parliament,"

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (532 days ago)

You're quibbling about identity - when we changed the Magna Carta, we called it something else because it wasn't the original, and we formed new statutes around it. The few times you actually managed to change the constitution, you still called it the same thing. My point is that the MC has been radically changed in the way it is used because the content is outdated, whereas the constitution hasn't, despite it being equally out of date and lacking your supposed core ideals.

"So it's not a fundamental ideal that both genders should be treated equally?" Yes and we have laws to give everyone equal treatment." But remember, you claimed that the constitutional amendments (not laws) were there to protect your fundamental ideals. Just stick to your point. No, tax without representation, denial of freedom of speech by anyone but congress, innocence until proven guilt are NOT part of your constitution. That shows how well you know it. Please quote the bits you thought directly and explicitly protected those ideals and we'll see where you've been confused.

No, you have no titles of nobility, but in your country if you are born into money you can buy politicians which is far more power than our Lords get. In fact, if you're born into money you can buy your way into being a presidential candidate. Scary stuff.

Well if you think being in charge of a relatively competent and nuclear army is "very little power" then I give up. You still missed my point about wartime. When you describe yourselves as being 'at war' with terrorism rather than the military of a specific country, then that excuses indefinite detention without trial of anyone you decide to call a terrorist. And that includes citizens of the USA. So I repeat, your president can execute and detain anyone without trial, just so long as there's someone around to call them a terrorist.

Yes, there are people to take over from the Queen, as there are people to take over from the president. The point was that those people can still be permanently removed from power by rebellions, military dictatorships etc. Our country has proved that at least once which is why despite having people next in line for the throne, we had 11 years without a monarch. But that's history, I know you won't have heard about that.

Why pay for a ceremonial power? People pay for ceremony all the time. And why don't we get rid of her? Because she's one of our country's best diplomats and as the a-political figurehead of the Commonwealth she is worth a great deal. Over centuries we now have reduced the powers of our monarchy so that they are no threat to democracy, yet unify a huge number of disparate nations. Talking of which, seriously, are you so deluded that you honestly think the USA has good international relations? Good grief, have you ever travelled anywhere and spoken with people? It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of most of the rest of the world - sorry to break it to you. I've met a lot of Americans who say it doesn't matter that they have bad international relations, but you must be the first I've seen who genuinely hasn't noticed.

""Blocking debate been exercised at least 39 times" - oh but I thought you were claiming that "the Queen's consent is needed before a law can even be debated in parliment". Now your point seems to be that in a small number of cases regarding legislation (specifically only "hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall") consent is asked, but for the rest it isn't. Interestingly enough, the figure you quoted was the result of a Freedom of Information request - a UK initiative that improves transparency (not exactly the hallmark of a tyrannical government). It's for this reason that the UK is ranked joint best in the world for anti-corruption and transparency, and once again the USA lags behind ( LINK ) But I know, those polls are meaningless aren't they? They asked the wrong people or whatever. Yeah, yeah. Your cognitive dissonance must actually hurt.

Sorry, I'm not sure I can be bothered with this. You have clearly never lived in the UK, and you simply have no clue how a constitutional monarchy works. Your knowledge even of American politics seems a bit weak, and your awareness of history is stereotypically American. You claim the UK is less free than the USA, but the result of impartial international research shows the opposite is true. You started this thread spoiling for an argument, yet I've seen you change your points too many times. You thought we still use the whole Magna Carta, you think an absolute monarchy is the same a constitutional monarchy, you think the Queen who can't even vote has a great deal of power and yet Obama with his finger on the nuclear button has "very little". OK kiddo.

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

You're quibbling about identity - when we changed the Magna Carta, we called it something else because it wasn't the original, and we formed new statutes around it. The few times you actually managed to change the constitution, you still called it the same thing. My point is that the MC has been radically changed in the way it is used because the content is outdated, whereas the constitution hasn't, despite it being equally out of date and lacking your supposed core ideals.

"So it's not a fundamental ideal that both genders should be treated equally?" Yes and we have laws to give everyone equal treatment." But remember, you claimed that the constitutional amendments (not laws) were there to protect your fundamental ideals. Just stick to your point. No, tax without representation, denial of freedom of speech by anyone but congress, innocence until proven guilt are NOT part of your constitution. That shows how well you know it. Please quote the bits you thought directly and explicitly protected those ideals and we'll see where you've been confused.

No, you have no titles of nobility, but in your country if you are born into money you can buy politicians which is far more power than our Lords get. In fact, if you're born into money you can buy your way into being a presidential candidate. Scary stuff.

Well if you think being in charge of a relatively competent and nuclear army is "very little power" then I give up. You still missed my point about wartime. When you describe yourselves as being 'at war' with terrorism rather than the military of a specific country, then that excuses indefinite detention without trial of anyone you decide to call a terrorist. And that includes citizens of the USA. So I repeat, your president can execute and detain anyone without trial, just so long as there's someone around to call them a terrorist.

Yes, there are people to take over from the Queen, as there are people to take over from the president. The point was that those people can still be permanently removed from power by rebellions, military dictatorships etc. Our country has proved that at least once which is why despite having people next in line for the throne, we had 11 years without a monarch. But that's history, I know you won't have heard about that.

Why pay for a ceremonial power? People pay for ceremony all the time. And why don't we get rid of her? Because she's one of our country's best diplomats and as the a-political figurehead of the Commonwealth she is worth a great deal. Over centuries we now have reduced the powers of our monarchy so that they are no threat to democracy, yet unify a huge number of disparate nations. Talking of which, seriously, are you so deluded that you honestly think the USA has good international relations? Good grief, have you ever travelled anywhere and spoken with people? It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of most of the rest of the world - sorry to break it to you. I've met a lot of Americans who say it doesn't matter that they have bad international relations, but you must be the first I've seen who genuinely hasn't noticed.

""Blocking debate been exercised at least 39 times" - oh but I thought you were claiming that "the Queen's consent is needed before a law can even be debated in parliment". Now your point seems to be that in a small number of cases regarding legislation (specifically only "hereditary revenues, personal property or personal interests of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall") consent is asked, but for the rest it isn't. Interestingly enough, the figure you quoted was the result of a Freedom of Information request - a UK initiative that improves transparency (not exactly the hallmark of a tyrannical government). It's for this reason that the UK is ranked joint best in the world for anti-corruption and transparency, and once again the USA lags behind ( LINK ) But I know, those polls are meaningless aren't they? They asked the wrong people or whatever. Yeah, yeah. Your cognitive dissonance must actually hurt.

Sorry, I'm not sure I can be bothered with this. You have clearly never lived in the UK, and you simply have no clue how a constitutional monarchy works. Your knowledge even of American politics seems a bit weak, and your awareness of history is stereotypically American. You claim the UK is less free than the USA, but the result of impartial international research shows the opposite is true. You started this thread spoiling for an argument, yet I've seen you change your points too many times. You thought we still use the whole Magna Carta, you think an absolute monarchy is the same a constitutional monarchy, you think the Queen who can't even vote has a great deal of power and yet Obama with his finger on the nuclear button has "very little". OK kiddo.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (532 days ago)

"My point is that the MC has been radically changed in the way it is used because the content is outdated, whereas the constitution hasn't, despite it being equally out of date" The constitution would have been out of date if we didn't modify it with amendments. Your MC is out of date.

“But remember, you claimed that the constitutional amendments (not laws) were there to protect your fundamental ideals. Just stick to your point.” I still stick to that statement.

“No, tax without representation, denial of freedom of speech by anyone but congress, innocence until proven guilt are NOT part of your constitution.” Regarding taxes, I told you how that works and I know it’s not specifically spelled out. Reread my message. Freedom of speech is covered in the 1st amendment. You got me on the innocent until proven guilty part though. I thought we had it specifically spelled out but it turns out to be a United Nations resolution called “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11” We abide by those resolutions.

“in your country if you are born into money you can buy politicians which is far more power than our Lords get. In fact, if you're born into money you can buy your way into being a presidential candidate.” You do not need money to be a presidential candidate. Anyone that meets the minimum criteria spelled out in the constitution can be a candidate. Will you win? Probably not unless you have money or can raise money. Nobody will know you exist unless you can afford to place advertisements and use other methods to spread your name. Money doesn’t guarantee anything either. Ross Perot was a multi-billionaire and he did not win. Suppose you think that’s because he didn’t bribe enough people or the right people?

Curious, what is the method for a private UK citizen to become prime minister? How does their campaign get financed?

“Well if you think being in charge of a relatively competent and nuclear army is "very little power" then I give up.” WTF? Do you even know how to read? I think you completely glossed over the “Other than that” part of the paragraph.

“And that includes citizens of the USA.” I was very careful to word it where I said US citizens in the USA. If my criteria holds true, they must be given a trial. Show me an example otherwise (excluding someone like a hostage taker that was shot on the scene because they were an immediate danger).

“Yes, there are people to take over from the Queen” Yes and they were born into the privilege. Until your Queen or King is elected, you do not have a true democracy — not even a representative one.

“The point was that those people can still be permanently removed from power by rebellions, military dictatorships etc. “ Your point was that the queen doesn’t have any power except ceremonial ones because she can be removed from power by rebellion if she uses any of her power. That is hogwash. You can say that about the leader of North Korea then because his people can rebel. Hahahahahaha -- Idiot!

“Because she's one of our country's best diplomats” Oh really. I didn’t see her come to the USA to give any recent speeches, I saw your prime minister though. Her public appearances are rare compared to other political figures. Obama, for example, is in the news nearly every day.

“small number of cases regarding legislation“ Doesn’t matter how few, she blocked them and does have the power to do so. You eluded that she didn’t have that power and I showed you that she does.

“You have clearly never lived in the UK” Another false assumption. One of my two bosses still works and lives in the UK. Interesting tidbit of information for you to dwell on.

“You claim the UK is less free than the USA” Did I claim that?

ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment

"My point is that the MC has been radically changed in the way it is used because the content is outdated, whereas the constitution hasn't, despite it being equally out of date" The constitution would have been out of date if we didn't modify it with amendments. Your MC is out of date.

“But remember, you claimed that the constitutional amendments (not laws) were there to protect your fundamental ideals. Just stick to your point.” I still stick to that statement.

“No, tax without representation, denial of freedom of speech by anyone but congress, innocence until proven guilt are NOT part of your constitution.” Regarding taxes, I told you how that works and I know it’s not specifically spelled out. Reread my message. Freedom of speech is covered in the 1st amendment. You got me on the innocent until proven guilty part though. I thought we had it specifically spelled out but it turns out to be a United Nations resolution called “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11” We abide by those resolutions.

“in your country if you are born into money you can buy politicians which is far more power than our Lords get. In fact, if you're born into money you can buy your way into being a presidential candidate.” You do not need money to be a presidential candidate. Anyone that meets the minimum criteria spelled out in the constitution can be a candidate. Will you win? Probably not unless you have money or can raise money. Nobody will know you exist unless you can afford to place advertisements and use other methods to spread your name. Money doesn’t guarantee anything either. Ross Perot was a multi-billionaire and he did not win. Suppose you think that’s because he didn’t bribe enough people or the right people?

Curious, what is the method for a private UK citizen to become prime minister? How does their campaign get financed?

“Well if you think being in charge of a relatively competent and nuclear army is "very little power" then I give up.” WTF? Do you even know how to read? I think you completely glossed over the “Other than that” part of the paragraph.

“And that includes citizens of the USA.” I was very careful to word it where I said US citizens in the USA. If my criteria holds true, they must be given a trial. Show me an example otherwise (excluding someone like a hostage taker that was shot on the scene because they were an immediate danger).

“Yes, there are people to take over from the Queen” Yes and they were born into the privilege. Until your Queen or King is elected, you do not have a true democracy — not even a representative one.

“The point was that those people can still be permanently removed from power by rebellions, military dictatorships etc. “ Your point was that the queen doesn’t have any power except ceremonial ones because she can be removed from power by rebellion if she uses any of her power. That is hogwash. You can say that about the leader of North Korea then because his people can rebel. Hahahahahaha -- Idiot!

“Because she's one of our country's best diplomats” Oh really. I didn’t see her come to the USA to give any recent speeches, I saw your prime minister though. Her public appearances are rare compared to other political figures. Obama, for example, is in the news nearly every day.

“small number of cases regarding legislation“ Doesn’t matter how few, she blocked them and does have the power to do so. You eluded that she didn’t have that power and I showed you that she does.

“You have clearly never lived in the UK” Another false assumption. One of my two bosses still works and lives in the UK. Interesting tidbit of information for you to dwell on.

“You claim the UK is less free than the USA” Did I claim that?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (532 days ago)

"Your MC is out of date." Correct, which is why we now only use 5% of it. Your constitution is out of date. You've only managed to add 17 points in two centuries and it still misses out on things you yourself describe as fundamental ideals.

"I still stick to that statement." I don't know if I can dumb it down even more. You claimed that "The constitution is just there to prohibit a lawmaker from creating a law that would be against our fundamental ideals", but I pointed out a fundamental ideal (several) that isn't included in the constitution and you said "Yes and we have laws to give everyone equal treatment". You're arguing with yourself. No taxation without representation is not spelled out anywhere in the constitution. So not a fundamental ideal, by your book. Freedom of speech is not either - reread the constitution please - it only says congress will not create a law denying freedom of speech. That is not the same. And as you acknowledge, innocent until proven guilty isn't a fundamental ideal protected by your constitution either. Are you only just learning all this now or were you just in denial? If the constitution is there to protect fundamental ideals, then why aren't your key fundamental ideals mentioned? If it's because laws do the same purpose and they are 'enough', then why be hamstrung by the archaic constitution in the first place? Take as long as you want to think about it. I understand it's confusing for you.

If you are unaware of the huge part money has to play in American politics then you need to wake up. It's a fact. Money doesn't guarantee anything but it gets you pretty far. In the UK, there is a cap on electoral spending; that means rich people are not allowed to throw all their wealth (often inherited) to try and get elected, nor can parties spend all their membership finances on it, and we do not allow advertising on the TV or radio either. We have learned by your bad example (on a range of matters). That's why there's more corruption in the USA than the UK.

“Well if you think being in charge of a relatively competent and nuclear army is "very little power" then I give up.” WTF? Do you even know how to read? I think you completely glossed over the “Other than that” part of the paragraph." Do you know how to read, or at least remember? Let me quote your exact words: "Our President has very little power alone" . Why on earth would you ignore his power over the military - I guess a nuclear button isn't significant, right?

You are still missing my point - concentrate - if all your government needs to say is 'we think he was dangerous', 'we think he was a terrorist', in order to circumvent the legal system altogether, and to avoid the case being seen by a jury of peers, then that should be alarming to you. And if all your authorities need to say is 'we suspected those journalists had committed a crime but we changed our mind' in order to control the press, remove them, silence them, that's alarming too.

"Until your Queen or King is elected, you do not have a true democracy — not even a representative one." OK well on this you're just factually wrong. The dictionary definition of democracy is "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives: a system of parliamentary democracy" . So not only do we have a democracy, but you stole many of its systems for use in your country - and still your country is less free, less open, and more corrupt than the UK. How did you manage that?

"Your point was that the queen doesn’t have any power except ceremonial ones because she can be removed from power by rebellion if she uses any of her power. That is hogwash. You can say that about the leader of North Korea -- Idiot!"
Brilliant. Now resorting to insults when you're struggling with the debate. Go for it, let it all out. But no, that's not what I said. I said she doesn't have any real power other than ceremonial, but I didn't say that's because of our powers of rebellion, but because of the observable nature of her powers. I only mentioned rebellion, impeachment, or the installation of a protectorate to show you how monarchies come to an end, and therefore why a constituional monarch is cautious in exercising their powers, and certainly can not risk extending them. You seem to think if someone wears a crown everyone does as they are told, regardless of what is down on paper. Go back to Disney. In a constitutional monarchy the Queen is bound by legislation and the acts of the elected parliament. I'm not going to respond to your North Korea point because that too shows an absurd lack of understanding of world affairs.

"Oh really. I didn’t see her come to the USA to give any recent speeches, I saw your prime minister though... Obama, for example, is in the news nearly every day." Good grief. Do you think maybe the fact Obama is on your news every day is the result of you living in the country where he's the president? Hilarious. Classic American insularity. No, you're confusing the word politican with diplomat. She is not a politician, she is a diplomat and an ambassador, and (particularly when she was younger) she significantly helps diplomatic relations. She helped broker peace in Northern Ireland (no mean feat), she creates incredible unity in the hangover from the empire, when relations should have been more strained than ever. It enables other countries to have a relationship with the UK that isn't just political. If Trump ever gets into power you will be reminded of how important that is.

“Doesn’t matter how few, she blocked them and does have the power to do so. You eluded that she didn’t have that power and I showed you that she does." It absolutely matters. You claimed "the Queen's consent is needed before a law can even be debated in parliment". That's incorrect. Deal with it. The fact she can only veto debate on legislation directly involving the Royal family makes a lot of sense.

“You claim the UK is less free than the USA” Did I claim that?" Right, so now you're saying that a country with a tyrannical monarchy like the UK is NOT less free than the USA? Oh wow. Just take a minute. Think about what your story is I try and stick to it for a whole comment.

"One of my two bosses still works and lives in the UK. Interesting tidbit of information for you to dwell on." Or maybe, just maybe, you're not quite as honest as you would like us to think. Bearing in mind your inability to accept when you've proven yourself wrong, your fondness of using multiple fake accounts to speak from, what reason would I have to to trust your claims of either you or your boss ever having lived here? You show a marked lack of understanding on British politics, you believe constitutional monarchy is the same as an absolutist monarchy, you believe parliamentary democracy isn't a democracy, you believe the USA has good international relations. I have good reason to believe you are very inexperienced on these matters and rather poorly educated. Don't tell me - you were misunderstood at school right?

ReplyVote up (78)down (101)
Original comment

"Your MC is out of date." Correct, which is why we now only use 5% of it. Your constitution is out of date. You've only managed to add 17 points in two centuries and it still misses out on things you yourself describe as fundamental ideals.

"I still stick to that statement." I don't know if I can dumb it down even more. You claimed that "The constitution is just there to prohibit a lawmaker from creating a law that would be against our fundamental ideals", but I pointed out a fundamental ideal (several) that isn't included in the constitution and you said "Yes and we have laws to give everyone equal treatment". You're arguing with yourself. No taxation without representation is not spelled out anywhere in the constitution. So not a fundamental ideal, by your book. Freedom of speech is not either - reread the constitution please - it only says congress will not create a law denying freedom of speech. That is not the same. And as you acknowledge, innocent until proven guilty isn't a fundamental ideal protected by your constitution either. Are you only just learning all this now or were you just in denial? If the constitution is there to protect fundamental ideals, then why aren't your key fundamental ideals mentioned? If it's because laws do the same purpose and they are 'enough', then why be hamstrung by the archaic constitution in the first place? Take as long as you want to think about it. I understand it's confusing for you.

If you are unaware of the huge part money has to play in American politics then you need to wake up. It's a fact. Money doesn't guarantee anything but it gets you pretty far. In the UK, there is a cap on electoral spending; that means rich people are not allowed to throw all their wealth (often inherited) to try and get elected, nor can parties spend all their membership finances on it, and we do not allow advertising on the TV or radio either. We have learned by your bad example (on a range of matters). That's why there's more corruption in the USA than the UK.

“Well if you think being in charge of a relatively competent and nuclear army is "very little power" then I give up.” WTF? Do you even know how to read? I think you completely glossed over the “Other than that” part of the paragraph." Do you know how to read, or at least remember? Let me quote your exact words: "Our President has very little power alone" . Why on earth would you ignore his power over the military - I guess a nuclear button isn't significant, right?

You are still missing my point - concentrate - if all your government needs to say is 'we think he was dangerous', 'we think he was a terrorist', in order to circumvent the legal system altogether, and to avoid the case being seen by a jury of peers, then that should be alarming to you. And if all your authorities need to say is 'we suspected those journalists had committed a crime but we changed our mind' in order to control the press, remove them, silence them, that's alarming too.

"Until your Queen or King is elected, you do not have a true democracy — not even a representative one." OK well on this you're just factually wrong. The dictionary definition of democracy is "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives: a system of parliamentary democracy" . So not only do we have a democracy, but you stole many of its systems for use in your country - and still your country is less free, less open, and more corrupt than the UK. How did you manage that?

"Your point was that the queen doesn’t have any power except ceremonial ones because she can be removed from power by rebellion if she uses any of her power. That is hogwash. You can say that about the leader of North Korea -- Idiot!"
Brilliant. Now resorting to insults when you're struggling with the debate. Go for it, let it all out. But no, that's not what I said. I said she doesn't have any real power other than ceremonial, but I didn't say that's because of our powers of rebellion, but because of the observable nature of her powers. I only mentioned rebellion, impeachment, or the installation of a protectorate to show you how monarchies come to an end, and therefore why a constituional monarch is cautious in exercising their powers, and certainly can not risk extending them. You seem to think if someone wears a crown everyone does as they are told, regardless of what is down on paper. Go back to Disney. In a constitutional monarchy the Queen is bound by legislation and the acts of the elected parliament. I'm not going to respond to your North Korea point because that too shows an absurd lack of understanding of world affairs.

"Oh really. I didn’t see her come to the USA to give any recent speeches, I saw your prime minister though... Obama, for example, is in the news nearly every day." Good grief. Do you think maybe the fact Obama is on your news every day is the result of you living in the country where he's the president? Hilarious. Classic American insularity. No, you're confusing the word politican with diplomat. She is not a politician, she is a diplomat and an ambassador, and (particularly when she was younger) she significantly helps diplomatic relations. She helped broker peace in Northern Ireland (no mean feat), she creates incredible unity in the hangover from the empire, when relations should have been more strained than ever. It enables other countries to have a relationship with the UK that isn't just political. If Trump ever gets into power you will be reminded of how important that is.

“Doesn’t matter how few, she blocked them and does have the power to do so. You eluded that she didn’t have that power and I showed you that she does." It absolutely matters. You claimed "the Queen's consent is needed before a law can even be debated in parliment". That's incorrect. Deal with it. The fact she can only veto debate on legislation directly involving the Royal family makes a lot of sense.

“You claim the UK is less free than the USA” Did I claim that?" Right, so now you're saying that a country with a tyrannical monarchy like the UK is NOT less free than the USA? Oh wow. Just take a minute. Think about what your story is I try and stick to it for a whole comment.

"One of my two bosses still works and lives in the UK. Interesting tidbit of information for you to dwell on." Or maybe, just maybe, you're not quite as honest as you would like us to think. Bearing in mind your inability to accept when you've proven yourself wrong, your fondness of using multiple fake accounts to speak from, what reason would I have to to trust your claims of either you or your boss ever having lived here? You show a marked lack of understanding on British politics, you believe constitutional monarchy is the same as an absolutist monarchy, you believe parliamentary democracy isn't a democracy, you believe the USA has good international relations. I have good reason to believe you are very inexperienced on these matters and rather poorly educated. Don't tell me - you were misunderstood at school right?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (533 days ago)

Just saw this TED talk and thought about you.

LINK

"Do you yearn to defend your own beliefs, or do you yearn to see the world as clearly as you possibly can?"

Develop your scout mindset.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

Just saw this TED talk and thought about you.

LINK

"Do you yearn to defend your own beliefs, or do you yearn to see the world as clearly as you possibly can?"

Develop your scout mindset.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (533 days ago)

Interesting video. I have changed my beliefs before. My entire family is religious but I am an atheist. I defend that view but am willing to change it if someone can prove to me that God exists. This proves that I don't have confirmation bias.

I make up my own mind about many subjects. I listen to friends to try to understand their views, I research things on my own, I read what experts have to say on the matter, then I make up my own opinions. An example is about who to vote for in November. We have many options and there are many opinions about who the best person would be and I have to weigh all the facts and pick who I think is best (or not the worst).

But there are some things that are facts and doesn't require any opinion such as the Queen having a lot of power and the people of Boreme being completely oblivious about it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (59)
Original comment

Interesting video. I have changed my beliefs before. My entire family is religious but I am an atheist. I defend that view but am willing to change it if someone can prove to me that God exists. This proves that I don't have confirmation bias.

I make up my own mind about many subjects. I listen to friends to try to understand their views, I research things on my own, I read what experts have to say on the matter, then I make up my own opinions. An example is about who to vote for in November. We have many options and there are many opinions about who the best person would be and I have to weigh all the facts and pick who I think is best (or not the worst).

But there are some things that are facts and doesn't require any opinion such as the Queen having a lot of power and the people of Boreme being completely oblivious about it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (533 days ago)

" I defend that view but am willing to change it if someone can prove to me that God exists. This proves that I don't have confirmation bias."

Good grief, do you believe this? That's hilariously naive.

ReplyVote up (101)down (66)
Original comment

" I defend that view but am willing to change it if someone can prove to me that God exists. This proves that I don't have confirmation bias."

Good grief, do you believe this? That's hilariously naive.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (533 days ago)

You change your position more often than you change your socks.

You were banging on about "The constitution has been created to prevent future congressmen to create laws that take away basic rights such as our freedom of speech. .... The Brits have no such protections so I feel sorry for you. "

Now that we've educated you about McCarthyism, try googling McCarthyism and blacklist - then tell us about freedom of speech in America. You seem to have such limited knowledge of your own history so I feel sorry for you,

ReplyVote up (101)down (68)
Original comment

You change your position more often than you change your socks.

You were banging on about "The constitution has been created to prevent future congressmen to create laws that take away basic rights such as our freedom of speech. .... The Brits have no such protections so I feel sorry for you. "

Now that we've educated you about McCarthyism, try googling McCarthyism and blacklist - then tell us about freedom of speech in America. You seem to have such limited knowledge of your own history so I feel sorry for you,

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (533 days ago)

From what I read about McCarthy, people still had freedom of speech but they were afraid to say certain things that might make them appear to be a commie. Nobody wanted to be associated with a communism because we were having a cold war with the USSR at the time. They could be blacklisted and it would hurt their career.

That is still a possibility but with other things such as politics. You wouldn't want to discuss politics during a job interview because your views might be different than the hiring manager's views and it could prevent you from getting the job. But there is no law that prohibits you from discussing politics if you're crazy enough to do it. I could put "I hate Obama" on my facebook page but then if my potential employer (or current employer) sees that and then likes Obama, they could not hire me or could fire me without cause. We are an at-will employment meaning the employees are allowed to quit anytime they want and the employers are allowed to terminate you anytime they want (unless you have some contract which is not normal unless you're in some sort of union). They do not need to provide a reason for termination just like I don't need to provide a reason for quitting.

ReplyVote up (101)down (57)
Original comment

From what I read about McCarthy, people still had freedom of speech but they were afraid to say certain things that might make them appear to be a commie. Nobody wanted to be associated with a communism because we were having a cold war with the USSR at the time. They could be blacklisted and it would hurt their career.

That is still a possibility but with other things such as politics. You wouldn't want to discuss politics during a job interview because your views might be different than the hiring manager's views and it could prevent you from getting the job. But there is no law that prohibits you from discussing politics if you're crazy enough to do it. I could put "I hate Obama" on my facebook page but then if my potential employer (or current employer) sees that and then likes Obama, they could not hire me or could fire me without cause. We are an at-will employment meaning the employees are allowed to quit anytime they want and the employers are allowed to terminate you anytime they want (unless you have some contract which is not normal unless you're in some sort of union). They do not need to provide a reason for termination just like I don't need to provide a reason for quitting.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (532 days ago)

"From what I read about McCarthy, people still had freedom of speech but they were afraid to say certain things"

Hmm yes - a bit like Stalinist Russia. People had freedom of speech, but they might be imprisoned if they said the wrong thing.... but there was still freedom of speech, right?

(Russia, by the way, is that big country to the east of Europe. Stalin was its leader until 1953 and was a bit of a dictator. I only mention this because you hadn't heard of McCarthy in your own country so I'm guessing you may not have heard of the leader of a foreign one.)

ReplyVote up (101)down (71)
Original comment

"From what I read about McCarthy, people still had freedom of speech but they were afraid to say certain things"

Hmm yes - a bit like Stalinist Russia. People had freedom of speech, but they might be imprisoned if they said the wrong thing.... but there was still freedom of speech, right?

(Russia, by the way, is that big country to the east of Europe. Stalin was its leader until 1953 and was a bit of a dictator. I only mention this because you hadn't heard of McCarthy in your own country so I'm guessing you may not have heard of the leader of a foreign one.)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (532 days ago)

You can have freedom of speech and be afraid to say your mind. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want and have absolutely no ramifications about it. It means the government will not do anything about it. But if you say something that would leave the government into thinking you're a terrorist, then you might get investigated. During the cold war, being known as a communist was a bad thing. People might have thought you were a spy or something.

ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment

You can have freedom of speech and be afraid to say your mind. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want and have absolutely no ramifications about it. It means the government will not do anything about it. But if you say something that would leave the government into thinking you're a terrorist, then you might get investigated. During the cold war, being known as a communist was a bad thing. People might have thought you were a spy or something.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (532 days ago)

So someone organising a trade union would probably be called a communist and so investigated by the government and put on a blacklist and never work again.

Hmm - Land of the Free, home of democracy. Splendid environment to live and work in.

Ever read The Crucible?

ReplyVote up (101)down (68)
Original comment

So someone organising a trade union would probably be called a communist and so investigated by the government and put on a blacklist and never work again.

Hmm - Land of the Free, home of democracy. Splendid environment to live and work in.

Ever read The Crucible?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (532 days ago)

You completely missed what I said. I never mentioned anything about trade unions being communist and being investigated by the government or anything of the sort.

ReplyVote up (101)down (54)
Original comment

You completely missed what I said. I never mentioned anything about trade unions being communist and being investigated by the government or anything of the sort.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (532 days ago)

This comment demonstrates your level of understanding.

ReplyVote up (101)down (66)
Original comment

This comment demonstrates your level of understanding.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (532 days ago)

Yes, the fact that I understand it very well. Thank you.

ReplyVote up (101)down (58)
Original comment

Yes, the fact that I understand it very well. Thank you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (532 days ago)

You completely missed what I said. I never said you mentioned anything about trade unions being communist and being investigated by the government or anything of the sort.

During the McCarthy era, could people openly join the communist party and it would have no bad consequences on their lives/work?

ReplyVote up (101)down (69)
Original comment

You completely missed what I said. I never said you mentioned anything about trade unions being communist and being investigated by the government or anything of the sort.

During the McCarthy era, could people openly join the communist party and it would have no bad consequences on their lives/work?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (532 days ago)

"During the McCarthy era, could people openly join the communist party and it would have no bad consequences on their lives/work?" Probably not. It might have bad consequences today too if an employer found out about it. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech though.

Can you join the ISIS and expect that you wouldn't have any bad consequences? Does that have anything to do with freedom of speech?

ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment

"During the McCarthy era, could people openly join the communist party and it would have no bad consequences on their lives/work?" Probably not. It might have bad consequences today too if an employer found out about it. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech though.

Can you join the ISIS and expect that you wouldn't have any bad consequences? Does that have anything to do with freedom of speech?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (531 days ago)

Well, the Communist party is a recognised political party with a history in the USA that goes back almost 100 years. It has put up candidates for election within the established system on a number of occasions.

So in the Land of the Free (and the home of the gun-totin') you say it might have "bad consequences today too if an employer found out" that you were a member of a legal, well-established political party.

Where does this all stop? Could there also be similar "bad consequences" for belonging to other equally legal organisations - perhaps supporting integration, libertarianism, women's rights, gay rights, gun-control....?

Yes - this way takes us towards freedom of expression only for an establishment subset.

As for joing "the ISIS" (as you quaintly put it), that would be that would mean being in favour of a group which is an off-shoot of Al Qaeda - a group claiming responsibility for a number of terrorist attacks (and more). It would not be surprising to attract bad consequences for allegiance to a terrorist group.

I'm not really surprised you try to equate a modern group of self-proclaimed terrorists with an established and constitutional political party - because that way you don't have to address any uncomfortable truths that confront your smug world-view that the USA is the second Eden.

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee, Cengland0

ReplyVote up (101)down (64)
Original comment

Well, the Communist party is a recognised political party with a history in the USA that goes back almost 100 years. It has put up candidates for election within the established system on a number of occasions.

So in the Land of the Free (and the home of the gun-totin') you say it might have "bad consequences today too if an employer found out" that you were a member of a legal, well-established political party.

Where does this all stop? Could there also be similar "bad consequences" for belonging to other equally legal organisations - perhaps supporting integration, libertarianism, women's rights, gay rights, gun-control....?

Yes - this way takes us towards freedom of expression only for an establishment subset.

As for joing "the ISIS" (as you quaintly put it), that would be that would mean being in favour of a group which is an off-shoot of Al Qaeda - a group claiming responsibility for a number of terrorist attacks (and more). It would not be surprising to attract bad consequences for allegiance to a terrorist group.

I'm not really surprised you try to equate a modern group of self-proclaimed terrorists with an established and constitutional political party - because that way you don't have to address any uncomfortable truths that confront your smug world-view that the USA is the second Eden.

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee, Cengland0

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Freedumb (535 days ago)

Not really. Support for the monarchy in Aus is climbing and has been for a while. I guess they can only dream of being in a country as free as the USA, where the military can imprison you without trial and without charge, where you can be assasinated on the whim of the President, where you can be monitored without warrant, where crippling tax rates hamper corporations, etc. etc. Land of the free. Actually, the USA has been lagging behind Australia in terms of freedom for decades (the Heritage Foundation, the Wall Street Journal, Fraser Institute and so on).

ReplyVote up (101)down (83)
Original comment

Not really. Support for the monarchy in Aus is climbing and has been for a while. I guess they can only dream of being in a country as free as the USA, where the military can imprison you without trial and without charge, where you can be assasinated on the whim of the President, where you can be monitored without warrant, where crippling tax rates hamper corporations, etc. etc. Land of the free. Actually, the USA has been lagging behind Australia in terms of freedom for decades (the Heritage Foundation, the Wall Street Journal, Fraser Institute and so on).

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Ace7 Ace7 (535 days ago)

You like to poke, don't you? FYI: The UK does not control Australia. Australia has a constitutional monarchy meaning the queen (and not the UK parliament) has the role to uphold the Australian constitution. She does not introduce legislation, she doesn’t receive any public money from Australia. Britain is regarded as a completely foreign government.

ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment

You like to poke, don't you? FYI: The UK does not control Australia. Australia has a constitutional monarchy meaning the queen (and not the UK parliament) has the role to uphold the Australian constitution. She does not introduce legislation, she doesn’t receive any public money from Australia. Britain is regarded as a completely foreign government.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (535 days ago)

She does receive Austrialian money when she is in Australia performing her duties and that pertains to any of the royal family that visits Australia.

The queen is part of parliment and does appoint the governor-general and the state governors are her representatives. The governor-general appoints the prime minister and cabinet members.

"The royal prerogative also extends to foreign affairs: the Governor-General-in-Counc il negotiates and ratifies treaties, alliances, and international agreements"

"The governor-general may reserve a bill 'for the Queen's pleasure'; that is withhold his consent to the bill and present it to the sovereign for her personal decision. Under the constitution, the sovereign also has the power to disallow a bill within one year of the Governor-General having granted Royal Assent."

"the common law holds that the sovereign "can do no wrong"; the monarch cannot be prosecuted in his or her own courts for criminal offences. Civil lawsuits against the Crown in its public capacity (that is, lawsuits against the government) are permitted; however, lawsuits against the monarch personally are not cognisable. "

So the UK doesn't control Australia but the same queen that controls the UK does control Australia.

ReplyVote up (101)down (75)
Original comment

She does receive Austrialian money when she is in Australia performing her duties and that pertains to any of the royal family that visits Australia.

The queen is part of parliment and does appoint the governor-general and the state governors are her representatives. The governor-general appoints the prime minister and cabinet members.

"The royal prerogative also extends to foreign affairs: the Governor-General-in-Counc il negotiates and ratifies treaties, alliances, and international agreements"

"The governor-general may reserve a bill 'for the Queen's pleasure'; that is withhold his consent to the bill and present it to the sovereign for her personal decision. Under the constitution, the sovereign also has the power to disallow a bill within one year of the Governor-General having granted Royal Assent."

"the common law holds that the sovereign "can do no wrong"; the monarch cannot be prosecuted in his or her own courts for criminal offences. Civil lawsuits against the Crown in its public capacity (that is, lawsuits against the government) are permitted; however, lawsuits against the monarch personally are not cognisable. "

So the UK doesn't control Australia but the same queen that controls the UK does control Australia.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (535 days ago)

Quoting random online forums is easy, understanding and critical thinking a bit tougher. Both the UK and Australia are parliamentary democracies. The queen is a figurehead undertaking ceremonial and representational duties.

ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment

Quoting random online forums is easy, understanding and critical thinking a bit tougher. Both the UK and Australia are parliamentary democracies. The queen is a figurehead undertaking ceremonial and representational duties.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (534 days ago)

The queen is not just a figurehead without any power. She does have real power and you are all in denial about it. Just because you have a nice monarch today doesn't mean that one day you wouldn't get another tyrannical one in the future that would use their power.

The fact that the Queen can do no harm means that she could kill a random citizen and cannot be prosecuted for it. Our president is accountable for his actions and can be impeached by congress.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

The queen is not just a figurehead without any power. She does have real power and you are all in denial about it. Just because you have a nice monarch today doesn't mean that one day you wouldn't get another tyrannical one in the future that would use their power.

The fact that the Queen can do no harm means that she could kill a random citizen and cannot be prosecuted for it. Our president is accountable for his actions and can be impeached by congress.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (534 days ago)

By "tyrannical" do you mean unlawful kidnapping, denying habeus corpus, imprisonment without trial, ignoring the Geneva Convention? You know - stuff like Guantanamo?

You seem to think that because the UK does not have a written constitution, we don't have any constitution.

And don't get me started about what you are in denial about, Cengland0

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

By "tyrannical" do you mean unlawful kidnapping, denying habeus corpus, imprisonment without trial, ignoring the Geneva Convention? You know - stuff like Guantanamo?

You seem to think that because the UK does not have a written constitution, we don't have any constitution.

And don't get me started about what you are in denial about, Cengland0

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (534 days ago)

The president can order the assassination of any citizen without trial. The queen cannot.

The president can order the surveillance of any citizen. The queen cannot.

The president can be impeached. The queen can be forced to abdicate, or even be overthrown by rebellion (remember our civil war?). The UK has a long history of restricting the powers of their monarch.

Your ignorance of history and politics should embarass you.

ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment

The president can order the assassination of any citizen without trial. The queen cannot.

The president can order the surveillance of any citizen. The queen cannot.

The president can be impeached. The queen can be forced to abdicate, or even be overthrown by rebellion (remember our civil war?). The UK has a long history of restricting the powers of their monarch.

Your ignorance of history and politics should embarass you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (534 days ago)

"The president can order the assassination of any citizen without trial. The queen cannot." False and Fase. The President must abide by the constititution. Your queen can do no harm so she can personally kill someone (not just order it done) and nobody can do anything to her. When Henry VIII killed an estimated 72,000 people, was he prosecuted?

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution explicitly declares that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"

"The president can order the surveillance of any citizen." Maybe if it is public surveillance but false if you're talking about private things like phone tapping. Even the NSA and other entities have to get a court order. Your MI5 department has surveillance of all your citizens too. You have more public monitoring cameras in London than any other city in the world.

"The queen can be forced to abdicate, or even be overthrown by rebellion" Now that's a good one. That hold true for any dictator or any government. It is also why we have our 2nd amendment. How can a country,with kitchen knives, overthrow a government that is a nuclear power with tanks and military grade weapons? Ha! You are so stupid.

ReplyVote up (101)down (69)
Original comment

"The president can order the assassination of any citizen without trial. The queen cannot." False and Fase. The President must abide by the constititution. Your queen can do no harm so she can personally kill someone (not just order it done) and nobody can do anything to her. When Henry VIII killed an estimated 72,000 people, was he prosecuted?

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution explicitly declares that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"

"The president can order the surveillance of any citizen." Maybe if it is public surveillance but false if you're talking about private things like phone tapping. Even the NSA and other entities have to get a court order. Your MI5 department has surveillance of all your citizens too. You have more public monitoring cameras in London than any other city in the world.

"The queen can be forced to abdicate, or even be overthrown by rebellion" Now that's a good one. That hold true for any dictator or any government. It is also why we have our 2nd amendment. How can a country,with kitchen knives, overthrow a government that is a nuclear power with tanks and military grade weapons? Ha! You are so stupid.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (533 days ago)

Your president can order the assassination without trial of any citizen he claims to suspect of being involved in terrorist activities. And what. on. earth. are you talking about? You're comparing the rights of Henry VIII with Elizabeth II? God almighty, your ignorance. Do you get your historical world knowledge from Disney cartoons? Besdies, a monarch could be prosecuted by a petition of right or by suit against the Attorney General for a declaration. She is constrained

Your 5th amendment is meaningless, because your government decide when it "in time of War or public danger" applies. Basically, it can kill who it wants without trial and just say 'well we think they were a threat'.

Your ignorance is genuinely baffling. Really. One of our monarchs was forced to abdicate within the last century. Another was beheaded in our Civil War. As Turkey (and other places you've probably not heard of) shows, a rebellion is rarely between civilians and government - the military breaks a contract and takes a side. Remember the Arab Spring? In other countries, sometimes peaceful protest is enough. I wish you watched the news and read some history books.

I'm afraid it's a fact that countries like the UK and Australia have more freedom than the USA. There is research every year that proves it. Stop swallowing your nationalistic ideals and look at the world.

"Ha! You are so stupid".

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Your president can order the assassination without trial of any citizen he claims to suspect of being involved in terrorist activities. And what. on. earth. are you talking about? You're comparing the rights of Henry VIII with Elizabeth II? God almighty, your ignorance. Do you get your historical world knowledge from Disney cartoons? Besdies, a monarch could be prosecuted by a petition of right or by suit against the Attorney General for a declaration. She is constrained

Your 5th amendment is meaningless, because your government decide when it "in time of War or public danger" applies. Basically, it can kill who it wants without trial and just say 'well we think they were a threat'.

Your ignorance is genuinely baffling. Really. One of our monarchs was forced to abdicate within the last century. Another was beheaded in our Civil War. As Turkey (and other places you've probably not heard of) shows, a rebellion is rarely between civilians and government - the military breaks a contract and takes a side. Remember the Arab Spring? In other countries, sometimes peaceful protest is enough. I wish you watched the news and read some history books.

I'm afraid it's a fact that countries like the UK and Australia have more freedom than the USA. There is research every year that proves it. Stop swallowing your nationalistic ideals and look at the world.

"Ha! You are so stupid".

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (533 days ago)

"Your president can order the assassination without trial of any citizen he claims to suspect of being involved in terrorist activities." Not when it is an American citizen in the USA. If someone is a terrorist outside of the USA, we will use drone strikes to get them. That is war and is very different.

" You're comparing the rights of Henry VIII with Elizabeth II?" Somewhat, yes. You failed to show me where the power has changed since then. Show me where the Queen can be prosecuted if she breaks the law and I may believe you but from what I understand, the Queen "can do no wrong" clause means she cannot be prosecuted.

"Your 5th amendment is meaningless, because your government decide when it "in time of War or public danger" applies. Basically, it can kill who it wants without trial and just say 'well we think they were a threat'." That is when Martial Law as been declared which is rare but does happen. Maybe you should look that up and learn about it. It's not just when it's convenient that a cop might want to search someone without a warrant he can declare it was due to war or public danger.

"One of our monarchs was forced to abdicate within the last century." Yes, I know all about that Edward VIII abdication. Since the monarch is also head of the Church, he cannot get a divorce and he wanted to marry someone else. He was presented with other options such as his new wife not becoming queen and getting a different title instead but he chose abdication instead. He could have chopped off the head of his first wife too. That's been done before.

"I'm afraid it's a fact that countries like the UK and Australia have more freedom than the USA." That is your opinion. We have our bill of rights that guarantee us certain freedoms such as Freedom of the Press. You cannot even say any hate speeches without being arrested.

ReplyVote up (101)down (69)
Original comment

"Your president can order the assassination without trial of any citizen he claims to suspect of being involved in terrorist activities." Not when it is an American citizen in the USA. If someone is a terrorist outside of the USA, we will use drone strikes to get them. That is war and is very different.

" You're comparing the rights of Henry VIII with Elizabeth II?" Somewhat, yes. You failed to show me where the power has changed since then. Show me where the Queen can be prosecuted if she breaks the law and I may believe you but from what I understand, the Queen "can do no wrong" clause means she cannot be prosecuted.

"Your 5th amendment is meaningless, because your government decide when it "in time of War or public danger" applies. Basically, it can kill who it wants without trial and just say 'well we think they were a threat'." That is when Martial Law as been declared which is rare but does happen. Maybe you should look that up and learn about it. It's not just when it's convenient that a cop might want to search someone without a warrant he can declare it was due to war or public danger.

"One of our monarchs was forced to abdicate within the last century." Yes, I know all about that Edward VIII abdication. Since the monarch is also head of the Church, he cannot get a divorce and he wanted to marry someone else. He was presented with other options such as his new wife not becoming queen and getting a different title instead but he chose abdication instead. He could have chopped off the head of his first wife too. That's been done before.

"I'm afraid it's a fact that countries like the UK and Australia have more freedom than the USA." That is your opinion. We have our bill of rights that guarantee us certain freedoms such as Freedom of the Press. You cannot even say any hate speeches without being arrested.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (533 days ago)

haha freedom of the press?? you have a short memory. remember occupy wall street demos where your journalists were kept away or arrested? plus your country locks up its whistle blowers. what planet do you live on. it must be fun beleiving every thing your goverment tells you.

ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment

haha freedom of the press?? you have a short memory. remember occupy wall street demos where your journalists were kept away or arrested? plus your country locks up its whistle blowers. what planet do you live on. it must be fun beleiving every thing your goverment tells you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (533 days ago)

It is hard to find specifics on journalists that were arrested. I didn't read about any that were kept away.

"Those detained including two AP journalists, reporter Karen Matthews and photographer Seth Wenig, who were held for four hours, Matthew Lysiak of the Daily News , and Julie Walker, a freelancer who works part-time for the AP . Although Walker told police she was a reporter, she was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct"

Notice she was arrested for disorderly conduct. We have freedom of speech but not freedom of disorderly conduct. The press does not have the freedom to go anywhere they want either. For example, I can go into my local grocery store and start taking pictures and video; however, I can be asked to stop doing that by the management or owner. I still don't have to stop. But what they can do is ask me to leave. If I refuse to leave, I can be arrested for trespassing. You see the difference now?

ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment

It is hard to find specifics on journalists that were arrested. I didn't read about any that were kept away.

"Those detained including two AP journalists, reporter Karen Matthews and photographer Seth Wenig, who were held for four hours, Matthew Lysiak of the Daily News , and Julie Walker, a freelancer who works part-time for the AP . Although Walker told police she was a reporter, she was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct"

Notice she was arrested for disorderly conduct. We have freedom of speech but not freedom of disorderly conduct. The press does not have the freedom to go anywhere they want either. For example, I can go into my local grocery store and start taking pictures and video; however, I can be asked to stop doing that by the management or owner. I still don't have to stop. But what they can do is ask me to leave. If I refuse to leave, I can be arrested for trespassing. You see the difference now?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (532 days ago)

You seem particularly gullible in this response. Basically, so long as journalists are labelled with some kind of minor misdemeanour (and never charged), it's fine that they are prevented from reporting about major events. Shocking, but I was interested to read up about it.

ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment

You seem particularly gullible in this response. Basically, so long as journalists are labelled with some kind of minor misdemeanour (and never charged), it's fine that they are prevented from reporting about major events. Shocking, but I was interested to read up about it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
COncernedCitizen COncernedCitizen (532 days ago)

Like I said in an earlier message, it's hard to find the specifics on this. I don't know exactly what happened but I do know one was arrested for disorderly conduct. Other than that, I don't know why the others were asked to leave or arrested. Have you considered that they might have been part of the crowd that was blocking traffic or the entrance to a building or something? Did the police give them a warning by asking them to disburse and when that didn't happen everyone was arrested?

You can be arrested and then not charged. If you're not charged within 24 hours, they must let you go. You could be the suspect in an armed robbery by fitting the description of the criminal, driving the same make and model car as the getaway vehicle, and owning the same kind of gun. The police may detain you thinking you were the criminal but may release you once they determine all that evidence is just circumstantial.

Do you allow your suspects to just wander around until you charge them with the crime? Are your police allowed to detain anyone for questioning? Has your police ever arrested the wrong person?

ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment

Like I said in an earlier message, it's hard to find the specifics on this. I don't know exactly what happened but I do know one was arrested for disorderly conduct. Other than that, I don't know why the others were asked to leave or arrested. Have you considered that they might have been part of the crowd that was blocking traffic or the entrance to a building or something? Did the police give them a warning by asking them to disburse and when that didn't happen everyone was arrested?

You can be arrested and then not charged. If you're not charged within 24 hours, they must let you go. You could be the suspect in an armed robbery by fitting the description of the criminal, driving the same make and model car as the getaway vehicle, and owning the same kind of gun. The police may detain you thinking you were the criminal but may release you once they determine all that evidence is just circumstantial.

Do you allow your suspects to just wander around until you charge them with the crime? Are your police allowed to detain anyone for questioning? Has your police ever arrested the wrong person?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (533 days ago)

hahahaaaa! do you really beleive this or do you feel its just what you gotta say? ok i will re phrase... i guess freedom of the press doesnt exist in the usa so long as they can think of some reason to arrest your journalists and remove them... and yet never charge them. so long as THEY say it was disorderly conduct that must be true because they have no cause to lie. hahaha i love it. no wonder you beleive so much crap. there are plenty of specifics available on all the major news sites. personally i would be shocked if my country was preventing the media from getting legal peaceful access to protests. you aparently just deny it. proper denial. thats why you will never been in the top 10 of countrys with freedom of the press. just beleive what they tell you though its easier.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

hahahaaaa! do you really beleive this or do you feel its just what you gotta say? ok i will re phrase... i guess freedom of the press doesnt exist in the usa so long as they can think of some reason to arrest your journalists and remove them... and yet never charge them. so long as THEY say it was disorderly conduct that must be true because they have no cause to lie. hahaha i love it. no wonder you beleive so much crap. there are plenty of specifics available on all the major news sites. personally i would be shocked if my country was preventing the media from getting legal peaceful access to protests. you aparently just deny it. proper denial. thats why you will never been in the top 10 of countrys with freedom of the press. just beleive what they tell you though its easier.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (534 days ago)

Not so fast, the queens representative, the Governor General, sacked the prime minister, and leader of the majority in parliament, in 1975 in Australia. She has the power to do so.

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

Not so fast, the queens representative, the Governor General, sacked the prime minister, and leader of the majority in parliament, in 1975 in Australia. She has the power to do so.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (534 days ago)

I have seen people try and teach COncernedCitizen these points before. It doesn't work. He has an idealised image of monarchy from Disney films and thinks that the Queen exerts political influence, the awful dangerous dictator that she is. Americans aren't known for their geopolitical knowledge of anything outside their borders so cut him some slack.

ReplyVote up (69)down (101)
Original comment

I have seen people try and teach COncernedCitizen these points before. It doesn't work. He has an idealised image of monarchy from Disney films and thinks that the Queen exerts political influence, the awful dangerous dictator that she is. Americans aren't known for their geopolitical knowledge of anything outside their borders so cut him some slack.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Swimmers rescued with drone
Swimmers rescued with drone
Is Elon Musk's huge battery in South Australia a waste of money?
Is Elon Musk's huge battery in South Australia a waste of money?
Tesla's mega-battery goes online in South Australia
Tesla's mega-battery goes online in South Australia
Elon Musk celebrates progress on world's largest battery installation
Elon Musk celebrates progress on world's largest battery installation
Giant mud crab
Giant mud crab