NationStates Jolt Archive

Doggone it! I knew healthcare was going to get into this. Now we will have to debate gun control and capitalism, too. Didn't we do this a couple hundred posts ago?

Im not brining healthcare into this (As in I dont want to start a debate on the American policy on health). I'm simpley stating that America is not the first nation to have a citizen serving government. If you look at Henry VII of England you will see that he to had a people serving attitude with regard to justice.

Im not brining healthcare into this (As in I dont want to start a debate on the American policy on health). I'm simpley stating that America is not the first nation to have a citizen serving government. If you look at Henry VII of England you will see that he to had a people serving attitude with regard to justice.
But that's very different from the idea that the very government itself belongs to the citizens. King Henry surely didn't consider himself a servant to the people, only to rule at their pleasure. I would bet he considered himself to be more a paternal figure.

And after I did look at Henry VII, I discovered he founded the Court of the Star Chamber. It was a court of appeal and because the monarchy didn't have a constitution to limit powers, it turned into a horror show.

Quoted from some site, britianexpress.com:
Finally, in 1641 the Long Parliament abolished the hated Star Chamber, though its name survives still to designate arbitrary, secretive proceedings in opposition to personal rights and liberty.

The French revolution definitely followed ours. And they screwed it up. I mean was killing all the nobles necessary? I don't think so. Then they elected President Napoleon. And what came next? Emperor Napoleon. How's that for a government of the people?

The US Constitution IS the law that all other law in the US must be tested against. I'd say the principles of Mill and Plato are pretty well enshrined into law!
Can you find god gaurenteed liberties in the constution? Or government's servitude of the people?

Can you find god gaurenteed liberties in the constution? Or government's servitude of the people?
That's what it is. Okay, you got me on a technicality. The philosophy is set out in the Declaration of Independence.

Although the Preamble kind of sums it up very nicely.

[i]We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[i]

Isn't that just great to read!

This is wonderful to read, too.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That's what it is. Okay, you got me on a technicality. The philosophy is set out in the Declaration of Independance.
Well, you dealt me one on "democracy" instead of "representative democracy"

We put a lot of parts together to give us a workable and adaptable government. We were certainly unique at the time, in that we realized the government served the citizens, not the other way around. We were also unique because we realized that the citizens were granted their rights and liberty by God, not by the government. I don't think you or Neo Cannen can tell me that there were other governments doing the same thing in 1789, or earlier.
Britain had the same system, she just didnt apply it to her colonies, which is why they rebelled. On the God thing, I dont see how that is necessarily good or right. Until the 1960s the US didnt admit that "men" meant black people. Hardly the best and fairest system. In fact saying that rights are given by god just sidelines those who arent Christians.

Britain had the same system, she just didnt apply it to her colonies, which is why they rebelled. On the God thing, I dont see how that is necessarily good or right. Until the 1960s the US didnt admit that "men" meant black people. Hardly the best and fairest system. In fact saying that rights are given by god just sidelines those who arent Christians.
I don't see how a parlimentary monarchy or whatever England called it is equivalent to a democratic republic. The US was founded on the principle that the government exists by consent of the governed. How was that like England?

The idea that rights come from the Creator is hardly window dressing. That certainly is the foundation of the idea that all men are equal and no man is above the law. The country was founded by Christians. That's just the way it was.

I don't see how a parlimentary monarchy or whatever England called it is equivalent to a democratic republic. The US was founded on the principle that the government exists by consent of the governed. How was that like England?


For the [Insert large, but not stupid number here]th time "THE AMERICAN SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE BRITISH SYSTEM". There is nothing original about it. Just because you were founded on those principals does not make you any supirior. That would be like me going creating an island in the middle of the sea (I dont know how but thats not the point), calling it a country and starting installing things like the first world kind of technology we see in America and saying "We are supiror to all of you because we started off with this stuff". The only reason America started with democracy was that by the time America was founded, democracy had become established in various countries. You didn't invent it for yourselves. The system was not unique, new or in any way inventive. So would you kindly stop sugesting that the US is in any way supirior because it was "Founded" on the basis of democracy.

For the [Insert large, but not stupid number here]th time "THE AMERICAN SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE BRITISH SYSTEM". There is nothing original about it. Just because you were founded on those principals does not make you any supirior. That would be like me going creating an island in the middle of the sea (I dont know how but thats not the point), calling it a country and starting installing things like the first world kind of technology we see in America and saying "We are supiror to all of you because we started off with this stuff". The only reason America started with democracy was that by the time America was founded, democracy had become established in various countries. You didn't invent it for yourselves. The system was not unique, new or in any way inventive. So would you kindly stop sugesting that the US is in any way supirior because it was "Founded" on the basis of democracy.
This is just going around in a circle. Enough.

This is just going around in a circle. Enough.

I am sorry, but you fail to understand me. I will just put it in a list of points to make it clear

1) America did not invent democracy.

2) The idea that American democracy is supiror to any other is extremely debateable.

3) The fact that America was founded on the principals of democracy does not make it supiror because the only reason it was founded on the principals of democracy is that democracy had become established in Britain at that time.

4) The American system of democracy was based on the British system.

So would you kindly just bow out and admit that the US is not supiror to everone else in this regard

Dammit, I can't resist. The US government was unique because

It didn't rely on the existence of a ruling class with the leisure time available to govern.

The ideas that people covenanted with one another to form a government existed in England, but was implemented in the US.

The courts formed an equal branch of government. This greatly expanded the role they played in England.

It didn't rely on the existence of a ruling class with the leisure time available to govern.

the hell it didn't and the hell it doesn't.

It didn't rely on the existence of a ruling class with the leisure time available to govern.


If you would care to expand upon that I may answer you. I'm not entirely sure who you are refering to here.


The ideas that people covenanted with one another to form a government existed in England, but was implemented in the US.


And it was implimented in the UK too. Whats your point?


The courts formed an equal branch of government. This greatly expanded the role they played in England.

I dont know how much you know about British politics and the British constitution but it obviously isn't very much. Judges in the UK did form an equal part of government. British common law (based on Judical precedent) is one of the sources of the constitution. Also Judges have the power to declare certian actions "Ultra Virers" and thus stop the government in its tracks. You rearly need to update your understanding of the British political system if your going to compare it to the American one with any degree of accuracy.

If we are so stupid, how come so many nations have been following our Democratic procedures? And other procedures for many a decade?

Yes but your system was copied from the British one

If you would care to expand upon that I may answer you. I'm not entirely sure who you are refering to here.

England depended on aristocrats to govern. Mainly because they had the free time to do so. Although there have been long periods where liberty flourished in England, there have been long periods of tyranny, too. The separate powers in the US Constitution were a mix of the monarchy, aristocracy, and commons that was designed to prevent the onset of tyrannny and preserve liberty.


And it was implimented in the UK too. Whats your point?
I think you helped make it. Talked about by Mills and others in England. Others included the Puritans. They sailed for America, implemented the convenant-based government. England followed suit at a later date. There, your present government is based on ours! Don't blow a gasket, I'm just joking. Sort of.



I dont know how much you know about British politics and the British constitution but it obviously isn't very much. Judges in the UK did form an equal part of government. British common law (based on Judical precedent) is one of the sources of the constitution. Also Judges have the power to declare certian actions "Ultra Virers" and thus stop the government in its tracks. You rearly need to update your understanding of the British political system if your going to compare it to the American one with any degree of accuracy.

I don't have a British history book. I have to pick up things from internet histories of Britian. One of those places (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/separation_of_power.htm) provides the following blurb:

The separation of power is an integral part of American Politics but is less clear in British Politics primarily as one, the American model, is guaranteed in their Constitution while the British Constitution is uncodifed and therefore roles have merged between parts of government.

Which seems to cast some doubt on what you tell me. The rest of the information on that site about separation of powers casts similar doubt as to the separate authority of the judicial branch in Britian today, much less 230 years ago. What do you expect from an unwritten constitution?

That's one more thing. We have a written constitution, not an amalgamation of documents.

Yes, thats that statement again that I found fault with; you have to make a major change.

Oh, but the United States DID make a major change! Granted, the US DID borrow the concepts of bicameral legislature and three separate branches of government from the British; however, the system of checks and balances among the three branches of government WAS uniquely American and WAS a major change. The system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches meant that all three branches could now keep one another in check. In turn, this meant that no one branch would gain too much power over any other branch. The British governmental system had NO equivalent of checks and balances in the late 1700s.

Yes, but it wouldn't be a world covering flood now would it? And certainly no-one got two of every species in an ark
but you must remember that the bible is a book of stories and is not meant to be taken literally.

I feel bad because I probably unleashed this hell on Earth with my, "I hate being American" thread.

Oh, but the United States DID make a major change! Granted, the US DID borrow the concepts of bicameral legislature and three separate branches of government from the British; however, the system of checks and balances among the three branches of government WAS uniquely American and WAS a major change. The system of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches meant that all three branches could now keep one another in check. In turn, this meant that no one branch would gain too much power over any other branch. The British governmental system had NO equivalent of checks and balances in the late 1700s.
If I remember correctly, the system of checks and balances was introduced by Charles de Secondat (also known as the Baron de Montesquieu) in his book The Spirit of Laws (published in 1752.)

I feel bad because I probably unleashed this hell on Earth with my, "I hate being American" thread.

Personally, I think this has been a pretty good discussion about the origins of the US government and the claim that it is a new form of government.

If I remember correctly, the system of checks and balances was introduced by Charles de Secondat (also known as the Baron de Montesquieu) in his book The Spirit of Laws (published in 1752.)
It's one thing to write a book about principles of government. It's quite another to codify them into a practical system.

Marx wrote a book. No one has been able to put his brand of communism into practice, yet. Or so the communists tell me.

but you must remember that the bible is a book of stories and is not meant to be taken literally.
*sighs*

I know that, the people who I was talking there to are the ones who seem not to.

It's one thing to write a book about principles of government. It's quite another to codify them into a practical system.

Marx wrote a book. No one has been able to put his brand of communism into practice, yet. Or so the communists tell me.
Well, I don't think that the idea of three separate, independant and balanced branches of government has been put into practice, but that's one of your claims with regard to the supremacy of the American Government system.

/reads thread

/remembers why she doesn't come into general very often

/flees

Americans are stupid.

Americans are stupid.

Vallus, you need a fluffle... :fluffle:

Well, I don't think that the idea of three separate, independant and balanced branches of government has been put into practice, but that's one of your claims with regard to the supremacy of the American Government system.
I guess we're at an impasse there. No problem. Good discussion, thanks.

England depended on aristocrats to govern. Mainly because they had the free time to do so. Although there have been long periods where liberty flourished in England, there have been long periods of tyranny, too. The separate powers in the US Constitution were a mix of the monarchy, aristocracy, and commons that was designed to prevent the onset of tyrannny and preserve liberty.


I dont know If I am ever going to get this through your skull but the US constitution was written 230 years ago. As far as nations go, that isnt very long. What you are describing here is what happened before that. When the US Constitution was writen, Parliment, like your system, was evolivng into a far more democratic position.


I don't have a British history book. I have to pick up things from internet histories of Britian. One of those places (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/separation_of_power.htm) provides the following blurb:

Which seems to cast some doubt on what you tell me. The rest of the information on that site about separation of powers casts similar doubt as to the separate authority of the judicial branch in Britian today, much less 230 years ago.


The only office to permiate all three brances was the office of Lord Channcelor, which previously was part of judicary, executive and legislative. However, the power he wields in the courts was reletively insignificent as given his duties to his department and Parliament, he was called upon to preside over very few cases


What do you expect from an unwritten constitution?

That's one more thing. We have a written constitution, not an amalgamation of documents.

Our constitution may not be written, but at least it can flex and adapt to suit the times much faster than yours.

I dont know If I am ever going to get this through your skull but the US constitution was written 230 years ago. As far as nations go, that isnt very long. What you are describing here is what happened before that. When the US Constitution was writen, Parliment, like your system, was evolivng into a far more democratic position.



The only office to permiate all three brances was the office of Lord Channcelor, which previously was part of judicary, executive and legislative. However, the power he wields in the courts was reletively insignificent as given his duties to his department and Parliament, he was called upon to preside over very few cases



Our constitution may not be written, but at least it can flex and adapt to suit the times much faster than yours.
I don't see that you've made any new arguments, so no you aren't going to change my mind. Going back to the link I posted earlier, it appears there is quite a bit of merging of the branches. Not necessarily all three, as in the Lord Chancellor's case, but certainly between several combinations of two branches.

Plus, why are you so anxious to watch this fun come to an end?

However, whereas the American model has separation as part of the American Constitution, this is less clear in Britain.

* The Prime Minister is an active member of the legislative (and can vote in Parliament, though a recent criticism of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown is that their voting record is one of the poorest of MP’s in the Commons) yet he is also the leading member of the executive.
* Also the Lord Chancellor is a member of the cabinet and therefore of the executive as well as being head of the judiciary.
* The House of Lords also has a right to vote on bills so they are part of the legislative but the Lords also contains the Law Lords who are an important part of the judiciary.
* As with the PM, the members of the Cabinet are also members of the legislative who have the right, as a Member of Parliament, to vote on issues.

Our constitution may not be written, but at least it can flex and adapt to suit the times much faster than yours.
And why is that an advantage? I would think that it would be a serious disadvantange to have a constitution that conformed to the will of the majority.

And why is that an advantage? I would think that it would be a serious disadvantange to have a constitution that conformed to the will of the majority.

Its an advantage because society is constantly changing and evolving and needing new legislation to control it or to provide it with better things. I see that as far more advantageous than the American system. Also our system of negative freedom law seems to me to make it far clearer.

The constitution doesnt just change every time there is a new government, it has checks. If it was as easy to take advantage of as you think, someone would have succeded by now. Keep in mind that in the UK it is a far simpler, albeit far harder to get voted into the position of an MP. How much do you know about First Past the Post?

Americans are for the most part dumb, watching Nascar and stuffing their faces with fried lard, but there are a lot of them so their are enough diamonds in the rough to keep things functioning somewhat smoothly.

Oh shut up you simpleton. Stop hogging the one Commodore 64 your village has and let another primitive check thier email. It's probably your turn to chuck a virgin in the volcano anyway. You can talk, in whistles and grunts, about how much you hate us later tonight when the whole tribe is dancing around the fire to appease the swamp god.

I don't see that you've made any new arguments, so no you aren't going to change my mind. Going back to the link I posted earlier, it appears there is quite a bit of merging of the branches. Not necessarily all three, as in the Lord Chancellor's case, but certainly between several combinations of two branches.


And what precisely is wrong with that. All members of the Executive are elected. And so are the members of the legislative. So why shouldnt they have the right to vote on issues. Oh, scary, the cabernit members and PM can vote on issues. That means a guarneteed, what? About 14/15 votes (cant remember specific size of Cabernit ATM, will check that). And whats wrong with the law lords, they are legal experts. There expertiese is needed in these cases.

Its amazing how stupid Americans are. If we are so stupid why would so many people would want to move here? Why are we labeled the Free Country? Why are we the only country that can protect out freedom?

Its amazing how stupid Americans are. If we are so stupid why would so many people would want to move here? Why are we labeled the Free Country? Why are we the only country that can protect out freedom?

1) There are loads of people who want to live in Britain too.

2) Who labeled you the free county? Oh thats right, Americans did

3) If you would care to define "Protect our freedom" rather than post a political decorators (whitewash) post up, maybe I will answer that one.

And what precisely is wrong with that. All members of the Executive are elected. And so are the members of the legislative. So why shouldnt they have the right to vote on issues.
This isn't about best or worst. I wouldn't argue that. Government is a tool for citizens to ensure an orderly society.

This discussion is about whether the United States established a unique form of government in 1789 when the Constitution was written. Three independent branches of government are one argument why I say that is a true statement.

1) There are loads of people who want to live in Britain too.

2) Who labeled you the free county? Oh thats right, Americans did

3) If you would care to define "Protect our freedom" rather than post a political decorators (whitewash) post up, maybe I will answer that one.

Quit picking on the helpless.

3) If you would care to define "Protect our freedom" rather than post a political decorators (whitewash) post up, maybe I will answer that one.


As far as im concerned. Without of the aid of the Americans in WW2. Europe would have been renamed Nazi Europe. There was no way that war was going to be won without fresh soldiers and help from a few scientists.

This discussion is about whether the United States established a unique form of government in 1789 when the Constitution was written. Three independent branches of government are one argument why I say that is a true statement.

I was argueing that Britian too has 3 independent brances of government, ergo it is not unique. You say that we dont, points to examples and I say that those examples do not compromise the independent nature of the three branchs. Just because we do not directly elect our executive does not mean that either one is dependent on the other. Parliament can hold the executive to account (See votes of no confidence Calaghan, entry into EU, select commities, standing commities etc) and the judicary can hold the exeutive to account (see Ultra Vires, Michael Howard, sentencing policy)

As far as im concerned. Without of the aid of the Americans in WW2. Europe would have been renamed Nazi Europe. There was no way that war was going to be won without fresh soldiers and help from a few scientists.

That is extrmely debateable. It is very possible that Britain would have been able to land a D-Day style landing with only Canadian and Commonwealth troops and suceeded (Certianly we wouldnt have had the Omaha beach massacre since we knew about our own designs for moving tanks in water). Add to that the Soviet influence, and the fact that the Royal Air Force was able to begin 1000 strong bomber raids on major cities without the help of the USAF. And your "scientists" developed the Nuclear Bomb and did not use it in Europe, so why you think that would have helped I do not know.

Kramers right, if you dislike the American government and say so, its one thing. If you go on a rant about Americans being arrogant and evil, then you are generalizing a ton of people. I've met people from many different countires, some friendly and warm, some arrogant and rude and but I do not assume based on that what the rest of the people are like in that country. For example, I met a very rude person from Wales a couple years back. Couldn't stand being around him. Does that mean I think all Welsh are like that? Definatly not, there are likely plenty of friendly ones too. America is a fine country, sometimes I get pissed with what they do, sometimes I'm pleased. I can understand why people dislike things the US does but generalizing the people that live in the country weakens your case badly.

Oh shut up you simpleton. Stop hogging the one Commodore 64 your village has and let another primitive check thier email. It's probably your turn to chuck a virgin in the volcano anyway. You can talk, in whistles and grunts, about how much you hate us later tonight when the whole tribe is dancing around the fire to appease the swamp god.

It seems that someone here has their definition of civilised imprinted into their mind, eh?
Primitive? Pray tell, what does Primitive mean? And eh, so you talk Americanised English, you are the better. And because people don't live in a country rich enough to do what you are doing now, you are better then them? Swamp God? Probably better than your "Christian God." Stop thinking your culture > all and get it into your goddamn thick skull that no-one else is better than anyone else.


As far as im concerned. Without of the aid of the Americans in WW2. Europe would have been renamed Nazi Europe. There was no way that war was going to be won without fresh soldiers and help from a few scientists.
Again, another "America won the war!!!!"
1.) Germany had no chance of succesfully invading Britain, especially after the Royal Navy and the RAF where superior to the German Airforce/Navy and the RAF was bombing German cities; just look at what happened in Dresden.
2.) Nazi Germany had no chance against the Soviet Union.


I concur with Neo Cannen. No-one nominated the US to be the World Police.

That is extrmely debateable. It is very possible that Britain would have been able to land a D-Day style landing with only Canadian and Commonwealth troops and suceeded (Certianly we wouldnt have had the Omaha beach massacre since we knew about our own designs for moving tanks in water). Add to that the Soviet influence, and the fact that the Royal Air Force was able to begin 1000 strong bomber raids on major cities without the help of the USAF. And your "scientists" developed the Nuclear Bomb and did not use it in Europe, so why you think that would have helped I do not know.
Why the scare-quotes around scientists?

Why the scare-quotes around scientists?

I was quoting him. I was emphesising it because I was unsure as to why he was talking about them in a discussion about the European theatre, when the A-Bomb is more about the Pacific.

lemme see here, where to begin the obesity rate in america has skyrocketed, half of kids these days are fat, look around(that is if you live in america) and see the people that actually think they have rights, it is only because the government says they have rights is because they think they do, now every joe blow can protest this and protest that, and somehow is right. Lawsuits are haywire, a doctor for instance operates on a young man dying of whatever, its a risky operation to begin with and they tell the mother, the boy ends up dying because in the first place he didnt have much chance to live anyway, but the doctor did his best, now the doctor is being sued for 15 million dollars and the woman wins... ok now tell me is this right? i think not, doctors dont spend half their life in school to have some educated moron sue it right off of him, people make mistakes and honestly there need to be caps, and yes there are those that do make stupid mistakes who deserve to be punished, but its gone too far. The media in america... for the majority is "reporting the facts" but many of you know that its all anti-bush, with the whole cbs incedent and every report on the war is always bad. One soldier says "Why dont they report the good things that we are doing over here, we do all this work and open schools, hospitals but none of it reaches the television, i just dont understand" after he watched a news report from America. Democrats think they are for the people but look at the decisions they make, i know everyone is past my karey but he said he would raise taxes on those that made over 200k a year, which is for the most part, the small businesses and a shocking majority of jobs in america come from small businesses, so if he taxed them then they would go bankrupt, thus losing more jobs and weakening america. In turn making a new record for lost jobs, so thank the Lord that he didnt get elected, with that said and if you have even read all this, China will come and kill us all, in all seriousness.

I was quoting him. I was emphesising it because I was unsure as to why he was talking about them in a discussion about the European theatre, when the A-Bomb is more about the Pacific.
It's funny how a thing translates in print. You're completely correct to quote him like that. I would have used "...scientists." to emphasise the context, but that's personal.

The way I interpreted it and the reason why I asked the question, was because the quotes can also mean "so-called". Hence the slang for scare-quotes.

Carry on!

i meant *uneducated moron, cause then that would make more sense

lemme see here, where to begin the obesity rate in america has skyrocketed, half of kids these days are fat, look around(that is if you live in america) and see the people that actually think they have rights, it is only because the government says they have rights is because they think they do, now every joe blow can protest this and protest that, and somehow is right. Lawsuits are haywire, a doctor for instance operates on a young man dying of whatever, its a risky operation to begin with and they tell the mother, the boy ends up dying because in the first place he didnt have much chance to live anyway, but the doctor did his best, now the doctor is being sued for 15 million dollars and the woman wins... ok now tell me is this right? i think not, doctors dont spend half their life in school to have some educated moron sue it right off of him, people make mistakes and honestly there need to be caps, and yes there are those that do make stupid mistakes who deserve to be punished, but its gone too far. The media in america... for the majority is "reporting the facts" but many of you know that its all anti-bush, with the whole cbs incedent and every report on the war is always bad. One soldier says "Why dont they report the good things that we are doing over here, we do all this work and open schools, hospitals but none of it reaches the television, i just dont understand" after he watched a news report from America. Democrats think they are for the people but look at the decisions they make, i know everyone is past my karey but he said he would raise taxes on those that made over 200k a year, which is for the most part, the small businesses and a shocking majority of jobs in america come from small businesses, so if he taxed them then they would go bankrupt, thus losing more jobs and weakening america. In turn making a new record for lost jobs, so thank the Lord that he didnt get elected, with that said and if you have even read all this, China will come and kill us all, in all seriousness.


Ever think about switching to decaf?

Ever think about switching to decaf?


that would be funny, except i have no tolerance for immaturity.

that would be funny, except i have no tolerance for immaturity.
Boo hoo! Now you've hurt my feelings.
What part of that post were we supposed to discuss?

honestly now, skip the false emotions. I do think that america is too haughty and will die soon. Even though it is viewed as the "most powerful nation in the world" i want you to think about what mr clinton did, he sold nuclear technology to china :headbang: they are communist with the largest population, as well as the most patient of people i have ever studied in my short life, ok so take a couple billion people, with the ability to force them to do anything, and then take the willingness to wait generations upon generations, who thinks im wrong?

I agree God Bless America.
And God Bless the American Education System. They need all the help they can get.
Why? Well many americans seem to believe that all the good stuff comes from good old USA.

The American Education system is messed up. Did you know that the schools that are failing the most have higher funding than other schools. So people say we need to fund education more to improve schools. It's not that simple. I am in a very good school in my opinion fill of smart and capable students. I believe smaller classes and less homework (so you're not up to 10:00 at night doing it) will help as I have seen it do. BTW...isn't sweden the one that doesn't allow hate speech but have freedom of speech but only if it's religion? Doesn't make sense?

I don't see how a parlimentary monarchy or whatever England called it is equivalent to a democratic republic. The US was founded on the principle that the government exists by consent of the governed. How was that like England?
Firstly it is, and has been since the 17th cenutry, BRITAIN. There is no English government. There is a BRITISH government. Secondly, the monarch has no actual power, they just sign the paper once parliament has made the decision. Since the English Civil War the monarch has known that if he / she exercises his / her theoretical power to dismiss a decision of Parliament, he / she has a serious risk of being deposed.

The idea that rights come from the Creator is hardly window dressing. That certainly is the foundation of the idea that all men are equal and no man is above the law. The country was founded by Christians. That's just the way it was.
Again, the US didnt count all men as being equal until the 60s, and even then it didnt class Communists as men in the Constitutional sense (ie they were arrested for their political views). That never happened in Britain, which is governed by what you view as an inferior system. Again on the Christian thing, it makes your entire society fundamentally relgiously biased, something that doesnt occur in Britain.

Quite frankly, I would much rather live in Britain where the government cant seize your property without a reason, and a government that doesnt use loopholes in international law to contravene its own constitution which supposedly applies to all men that a so-called free state currently government by a bunch of Neo-Conservatives Christian whackos.

haha nice, i happen to be a junior in a college prep high school and i find myself up after midnight quite often, but school should become not required, there is too much apathy among students, let the students decide, so if they decide not to go and screw up their lives, and then later realize that they needed to be educated then they can go back, honestly, too much hate is going through the schools.

honestly now, skip the false emotions. I do think that america is too haughty and will die soon. Even though it is viewed as the "most powerful nation in the world" i want you to think about what mr clinton did, he sold nuclear technology to china :headbang: they are communist with the largest population, as well as the most patient of people i have ever studied in my short life, ok so take a couple billion people, with the ability to force them to do anything, and then take the willingness to wait generations upon generations, who thinks im wrong?
Hopefully you're life isn't going to end in the next five minutes. Pick one idea out of that first post. Make a thread. Let us beat it to death. Take another idea. Make another thread. And so on. You have enough ideas to keep you busy for a while.

You might read back a few posts, too. That kind of gives you an idea of the tone of the thread. These things wander a bit, so the title doesn't always give you a good idea of the current topic.

Last, get a sense of humor. Life is serious, but you need to enjoy it.

i have a sense of humor, but i happen to be pessimistic when it comes to humans because they are so selfish and apathetic and what ever else you can give that negatively describes them, i will say that i have met those few people that make life enjoyable and thats the only reason you're seeing this right now is because of them. So i would like to give a big applause out to those that make life easier.

i have a sense of humor, but i happen to be pessimistic when it comes to humans because they are so selfish and apathetic and what ever else you can give that negatively describes them, i will say that i have met those few people that make life enjoyable and thats the only reason you're seeing this right now is because of them. So i would like to give a big applause out to those that make like easier.
Well, on behalf of myself, I guess, welcome to NationStates. I hope it's worth your time.

its appreciated

I am stupid, because I am American. I win because if living well and prospering is stupid, what makes you not stupid? Sucking at life. I accept my stupidness. The word is now changing to actually mean something good. Maybe you can change the words of idiot and fool as well. The responsibility lies within yourself, not other people.