ForumGarden

tude dog;1497349 wrote: First of all, I am not advocating rebellion. If the day comes, there is no telling what form it would take.Dogster, I'm glad to hear that you're not advocating that - you had me worried there for a while.

If that ever happens, I don't know what form it will take either, but I know what the result will be - lots of rebels dead or serving long prison sentences. Americans don't want their country taken over by nut cases.

Mark Aspam;1497352 wrote: Americans don't want their country taken over by nut cases.Too late for that. Dick Cheney and his disgusting circle are just the visible tip of a huge iceberg. Leaving them unprosecuted constitutes a takeover on their part.

spot;1497353 wrote: Too late for that. Dick Cheney and his disgusting circle are just the visible tip of a huge iceberg. Leaving them unprosecuted constitutes a takeover on their part.I agree with you on Cheney but that has nothing to do with the second amendment. Dog believes that the purpose of the 2nd is to protect gunowners rights but its actual purpose is pretty much the opposite - to protect the public from insurrections such as he seems to be proposing, or at least predicting.

Funny ennit ?

We British are NOT free to own hand guns (we are, but lets keep it simple for this argument)

We ARE free to send our kids to school without fear....as the norm.

We ARE free to go about our daily business without fear of being caught in police bad guys cross fire.

We ARE free to sleep in our beds without worry of armed burglaries (House invasion........another Americanism for a shorter word)

We AR free of daily anguish of armed assault.

Why do the Americans describe their country as the land of the free ?

Bruv;1497356 wrote: 1. Funny ennit ?

2. (House invasion........another Americanism for a shorter word)

3. We AR free of daily anguish of armed assault.

4. Why do the Americans describe their country as the land of the free ?1. It ent funny at all.

2. No, that would apply only to a VACANT house. The term you want is HOME invasion.

3. Unless you're an MP I guess.

4. Free from British tyranny - it's an historical reference.

Mark Aspam;1497363 wrote: 1. It ent funny at all.

2. No, that would apply only to a VACANT house. The term you want is HOME invasion.

3. Unless you're an MP I guess.

4. Free from British tyranny - it's an historical reference.


I'd often wondered

Bryn Mawr;1497379 wrote: I'd often wondered :-)From Wikipedia: "The lyrics come from "Defence of Fort M'Henry", a poem written on September 13, 1814 by the 35-year-old lawyer and amateur poet Francis Scott Key after witnessing the bombardment of Fort McHenry by British ships of the Royal Navy in Baltimore Harbor during the Battle of Fort McHenry in the War of 1812. Key was inspired by the large American flag, the Star-Spangled Banner, flying triumphantly above the fort during the American victory."

Mark Aspam;1497381 wrote: From Wikipedia: "The lyrics come from "Defence of Fort M'Henry", a poem written on September 13, 1814 by the 35-year-old lawyer and amateur poet Francis Scott Key after witnessing the bombardment of Fort McHenry by British ships of the Royal Navy in Baltimore Harbor during the Battle of Fort McHenry in the War of 1812. Key was inspired by the large American flag, the Star-Spangled Banner, flying triumphantly above the fort during the American victory."


OK, I'd assumed that it was already a term in use before it became part of the national anthem, not the other way round.

Mark Aspam;1497363 wrote: Free from British tyranny - it's an historical reference.


And we still call ourselves Great Britain..................it's an historical reference too.

I can hardly believe some of the republican senators. Are they really that selfish and might I ad blind?

Ted;1497412 wrote: I can hardly believe some of the republican senators. Are they really that selfish and might I ad blind?


It would appear so.

Bruv;1497403 wrote: And we still call ourselves Great Britain..................it's an historical reference too.I always assumed that the "Great" was in the sense of "larger", that is, encompassing not just England but Scotland, Wales, Man, the stolen Irish counties, etc.

Mark Aspam;1497420 wrote: I always assumed that the "Great" was in the sense of "larger", that is, encompassing not just England but Scotland, Wales, Man, the stolen Irish counties, etc.


It's quite simply the name - past and present - of the large island on which much of England, Wales and Scotland is located. If you really want to annoy an Irishman of any persuasion, remind him of the old name for the island of Ireland - "Lesser Britain". Both islands together, along with all the small surrounding islets like Anglesey, Wight, Man, Inishmore, Mull, Rockall etc, are called collectively The British Isles, on which are located the two nations of (firstly) The Republic of Ireland aka The Irish Republic aka Eire and (secondly) Great Britain and Northern Ireland aka The Lesser Satan aka The Paper Tiger.

Ted;1497412 wrote: I can hardly believe some of the republican senators. Are they really that selfish and might I ad blind?


Let's put the blame where it truly belongs--on the uninformed idiots who keep voting for them. If the polls are even barely correct, an overwhelming majority of Americans of both parties want restrictions on guns. Yet these same Republicans vote over and over again for the person who does not support their views. Voters are ignorant, and what's worse, take pride in it.

AnneBoleyn;1497426 wrote: Let's put the blame where it truly belongs--on the uninformed idiots who keep voting for them. If the polls are even barely correct, an overwhelming majority of Americans of both parties want restrictions on guns. Yet these same Republicans vote over and over again for the person who does not support their views. Voters are ignorant, and what's worse, take pride in it.


Quite a profound statement.

A democracy where the minority control the majority.???? I don't think so.

Ted;1497545 wrote: A democracy where the minority control the majority.???? I don't think so.


That is a subject all by itself.

Let's see, all these Senators are elected by a majority vote.

That is somewhat questionable. The upper class votes. Some of the middle class votes and the poor class are busing trying to keep themselves fed and sheltered. They say it is about terrorism but that is not always so: Sandy Hook, Columbine, the college shootings are not about terrorism in the present understanding of the word. These folks are plane selfish and or Blind. Perhaps they don't want to use their heads.

Ted;1497545 wrote: A democracy where the minority control the majority.???? I don't think so.


That's what we have in the UK - less than a third of the electorate voted for the party in power.

tude dog;1497551 wrote: That is a subject all by itself.

Let's see, all these Senators are elected by a majority vote.


by a majority of those who voted, at least. There is a significant difference for some. But that says a lot. In some districts, a majority of voters just never show at the polls. they either don't care, or they don't like the choices.

LarsMac;1497613 wrote: by a majority of those who voted, at least. There is a significant difference for some. But that says a lot. In some districts, a majority of voters just never show at the polls. they either don't care, or they don't like the choices.


Then they should shut the F up.

AnneBoleyn;1497629 wrote: Then they should shut the F up.


If you are presented with two (or three or four) candidates each of whom are abhorrent to you then what do you do - just curl up and pretend the world does not exist?

Certainly in British politics it is a circumstance that happens quite frequently.

Bryn Mawr;1497636 wrote: If you are presented with two (or three or four) candidates each of whom are abhorrent to you then what do you do - just curl up and pretend the world does not exist?

Certainly in British politics it is a circumstance that happens quite frequently.


I would write in a name. I vote. There are parties here like the Green Party or Working Families Party. When I am bombarded with political requests for money I don't have to give, I tell them I do the best thing possible. I VOTE. My grandma Rose marched for the Vote, blacks died for the vote. I VOTE. We had a Revolution against your King George III. I VOTE. There is always an option, & NOT voting is not one of them. I can't remember not voting for the Democrat, but my memory might be incorrect.

AnneBoleyn;1497639 wrote: I would write in a name. I vote. There are parties here like the Green Party or Working Families Party. When I am bombarded with political requests for money I don't have to give, I tell them I do the best thing possible. I VOTE. My grandma Rose marched for the Vote, blacks died for the vote. I VOTE. We had a Revolution against your King George III. I VOTE. There is always an option, & NOT voting is not one of them. I can't remember not voting for the Democrat, but my memory might be incorrect.


If all of the candidates are abhorrent to you the voting for any of them is not an option. In such a case my usual response is to vote with a spoilt paper - "none of the above".

A non-vote I agree but the only form of protest vote available to me.

I see a non-vote as giving an equal share of your vote to every candidate.

More often than not the turnout of an election is only about 30% - 40%. Therefore 60% - 70% didn't vote for any of the candidates. Out of those that did vote, under the FPTP system, depending on the number of candidates standing, it's quite possible for someone to win with only, say 25% of the vote. This can mean that an entire Government can be elected on the say so of less than 10% of the electorate.

At least with the Referendum, it was not only a landmark decision in history, being a binary option (In or Out), but it had the greatest turnout ever, with 73%, with a decisive majority.

It is so easy for people to claim about their Government's leaders, by saying that they never voted for them, but it is contemptuous when they are asked who they DID vote for, and they reply that they're all as bad as each other & didn't vote at all. Even if you think they are as bad as each other, there still has to be one that you believe is less bad than the others. Sure, it's a case of glass half empty / half full, but you can always looks to see which option leaves the glass least empty.

FourPart;1497654 wrote: I see a non-vote as giving an equal share of your vote to every candidate.

More often than not the turnout of an election is only about 30% - 40%. Therefore 60% - 70% didn't vote for any of the candidates. Out of those that did vote, under the FPTP system, depending on the number of candidates standing, it's quite possible for someone to win with only, say 25% of the vote. This can mean that an entire Government can be elected on the say so of less than 10% of the electorate.

At least with the Referendum, it was not only a landmark decision in history, being a binary option (In or Out), but it had the greatest turnout ever, with 73%, with a decisive majority.

It is so easy for people to claim about their Government's leaders, by saying that they never voted for them, but it is contemptuous when they are asked who they DID vote for, and they reply that they're all as bad as each other & didn't vote at all. Even if you think they are as bad as each other, there still has to be one that you believe is less bad than the others. Sure, it's a case of glass half empty / half full, but you can always looks to see which option leaves the glass least empty.


So which of the unacceptable candidates would you vote for?

Bryn Mawr;1497646 wrote: If all of the candidates are abhorrent to you the voting for any of them is not an option. In such a case my usual response is to vote with a spoilt paper - "none of the above".

A non-vote I agree but the only form of protest vote available to me.


I've never had the circumstance that all the candidates are abhorrent to me.

AnneBoleyn;1497658 wrote: I've never had the circumstance that all the candidates are abhorrent to me.


Then either your politicians are not as bad as ours or your opinion of politicians in general is higher than mine - I often find myself in that position.

My opinion is rock bottom. They are all dishonest.

If all else fails, there's always the Monster Raving Loony Party, and the like, candidates

Bryn Mawr;1497659 wrote: Then either your politicians are not as bad as ours or your opinion of politicians in general is higher than mine - I often find myself in that position.


Me too. Trouble is the ones that might be good just aren't good at selling themselves, while the rubbish ones are brilliant at it.

Bruv;1497674 wrote: Me too. Trouble is the ones that might be good just aren't good at selling themselves, while the rubbish ones are brilliant at it.


Ne'er a truer word spoken. Same as with the entertainment industry. The truly great remain great forever. Then there are those with superb management who hit the heights, with celebrity status oozing out of them. Then a few months later it's a case of "who"?

Ted;1497565 wrote: That is somewhat questionable. The upper class votes. Some of the middle class votes and the poor class are busing trying to keep themselves fed and sheltered..


All the same, Senators are elected by majority vote.

LarsMac;1497613 wrote: by a majority of those who voted, at least. There is a significant difference for some. But that says a lot. In some districts, a majority of voters just never show at the polls. they either don't care, or they don't like the choices.


Exactly!

Bryn Mawr;1497636 wrote: If you are presented with two (or three or four) candidates each of whom are abhorrent to you then what do you do - just curl up and pretend the world does not exist?

Certainly in British politics it is a circumstance that happens quite frequently.


That is what I will face come November in the election for President. For me first time there is no lesser of two evils.

tude dog;1497686 wrote: That is what I will face come November in the election for President. For me first time there is no lesser of two evils.


Did you watch the libertarian Town Hall on CNN?

Ted;1497661 wrote: My opinion is rock bottom. They are all dishonest.


Never a truer word ...

Bryn Mawr;1497659 wrote: Then either your politicians are not as bad as ours or your opinion of politicians in general is higher than mine - I often find myself in that position.


I met a 95 year old black lady on the bus yesterday. She knows the importance of being able to vote. Wish you could meet her, she'd tell you a thing or two. My opinion of politicians is grounded in reality. Someone is going to get the job no matter if I vote or not. I'm not going to help any candidate I truly don't like by not voting. It's usually more simplistic here since we're a bunch of simpletons. I've really only lived in more sophisticated areas of the country, so maybe the choices are better.

Not voting is a form of elitism.

I do vote but hold my nose while doing so. We had a premier who promised he would not accept a combined sales tax. Three weeks later he announced it was coming. New info came up. Well nothing is ever that fast in politics. He is suspected of knowing the combined tax even before the election. Could list others but that should suffice. Maybe I should add our present premier pontificates on being green and then out of the other side of her mouth she tries to sell LNG and oil. Honesty???

AnneBoleyn;1497710 wrote: I met a 95 year old black lady on the bus yesterday. She knows the importance of being able to vote. Wish you could meet her, she'd tell you a thing or two.


I believe that. No doubt she knows well what it is like to not be able to exercise that right.

AnneBoleyn;1497710 wrote: My opinion of politicians is grounded in reality. Someone is going to get the job no matter if I vote or not. I'm not going to help any candidate I truly don't like by not voting.


I hate the "they are all corrupt" attitude. That is a cop-out excuse for ignorance. There are some I've met and followed closely and no corruption far as I can tell.

I didn't vote for Jimmy Carter. I believe he had a failed presidency but never was there ever any suggestion he was corrupt.

AnneBoleyn;1497710 wrote: I've really only lived in more sophisticated areas of the country, so maybe the choices are better.


Lucy you. So you never live in California. I have to agree that Democratic State is just full of simpletons.

Wasn't always like that.

AnneBoleyn;1497710 wrote: Not voting is a form of elitism.


Does going to the polls and not punching the card count?

I have a habit of not voting for judges as I have not idea who they are or what their record is. In short, there is no way to know anything about them. One year there was a ballot of just judges. I went to the poll, stood in the booth looking at the ballot without marking any at all. I did go and submitted a ballot.

I did make an exception a few years ago. A young attractive gal knocked on the door. I walked out and found she was running for a judgeship. She pressed me to ask her any question I wanted. She was running for a local judgeship and I didn't think talking about the major issues were relevant. We just talked a little bit, but I did not know in my county judgeships are partisan. Just for the heck of it, I could have asked her about the partisanship.

Anyway, she was cute, pleasant and came to me for a vote. I told her I would vote for her, only later to find out she is a DEMOCRAT.