'Evil and Orwellian' – America's right turns its fire on Britain's NHS - Polidicks

[QUOTE=snuwoods;16679860]I know this is for Norway, but humans are all alike in some ways. The rich are not immune to alcohol or tobacco consumption.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying they are but for every one rich person who needs a liver transplant there will be twenty poor ones simply on the merit that there are many more poor people than there are rich people.

[QUOTE=Athelus;16679823]Yep, and we don't even have one of your fancy constitutions either! List of democracies without a constitution: UK New Zealand (former UK colony) Iran. That's a type of constitutional monarchy.[/QUOTE] Incorrect. It's a common misconception that we don't have a constitution. We have an uncodified constitution in Common Law, Statute Law etc. ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom[/url])

[QUOTE=Athelus;16679823]That's a type of constitutional monarchy.[/QUOTE] Not really, it's just a system in which the legislative and executive sides of government are one in the same and there is one head of both sides of government. A monarch system is separate and a parliamentary democracy can act with its Prime Minister or the equivalent thereof as the chief of state.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;16679908]Incorrect. It's a common misconception that we don't have a constitution. We have an uncodified constitution in Common Law, Statute Law etc. ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom[/url])[/QUOTE] Yeah, uncodified though... no official binding document... the PM can pretty much ignore most precedents... (I'm a member of Charter 88... so maybe i am biased) [QUOTE=Lankist;16679940]Not really, it's just a system in which the legislative and executive sides of government are one in the same and there is one head of both sides of government. A monarch system is separate and a parliamentary democracy can act with its Prime Minister or the equivalent thereof as the chief of state.[/QUOTE] A parliamentary system usually has a symbolic figurehead, and so they are mainly constitutional monarchies.

[QUOTE=Athelus;16679969]Yeah, uncodified though... no official binding document... the PM can pretty much ignore most precedents... (I'm a member of Charter 88...)[/QUOTE] Not really. If the PM ignores an Act of Parliament, then...well he can't. And this is another argument. Is a codified constitution really better than an uncodified one?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;16680008]Not really. If the PM ignores an Act of Parliament, then...well he can't. And this is another argument. Is a codified constitution really better than an uncodified one?[/QUOTE] It depends entirely on whether or not you want your constitution to act as the Supreme Law and if you want to protect it from discrete change via precedence.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16680052]It depends entirely on whether or not you want your constitution to act as the Supreme Law and if you want to protect it from discrete change via precedence.[/QUOTE] True. But one of the arguments against is that it is far easier to amend and interpret than a codified constitution such as the US's. I mean, look at the 2nd amendment. Almost all anti-gun supporters claim that the amendment is poorly written etc. (Though it seems fairly clear what it says to me). I mean, isn't it 75% of Congress for an amendment to the Constitution?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;16680008]Not really. If the PM ignores an Act of Parliament, then...well he can't. And this is another argument. Is a codified constitution really better than an uncodified one?[/QUOTE] Not if it's a discretionary power... Haha, but yeah, heading really offtopic... [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;16680091]True. But one of the arguments against is that it is far easier to amend and interpret than a codified constitution such as the US's. I mean, look at the 2nd amendment. Almost all anti-gun supporters claim that the amendment is poorly written etc. (Though it seems fairly clear what it says to me). I mean, isn't it 75% of Congress for an amendment to the Constitution?[/QUOTE] Being able to amend things easily is an argument both for, and against.

"Senator, do you read the crayon?" "The Quaran?" "Yes" "No, I do not." Cookie for whoever gets it. By the way, we have the teabaggers, the birthers, and the deathers. What the hell is next?

[QUOTE=snuwoods;16679860]I know this is for Norway, but humans are all alike in some ways. The rich are not immune to alcohol or tobacco consumption.[/QUOTE] Norway is a different country then America. Norway is a lot more progressive.

[QUOTE=Xesum;16679515]600000000. That is not 6 Billion. A Billion is 1000000000000 Good maths.[/QUOTE] A billion is 10^9. That's a trillion (10^12).

[QUOTE=Olinaj;16680118]"Senator, do you read the crayon?" "The Quaran?" "Yes" "No, I do not." Cookie for whoever gets it. By the way, we have the teabaggers, the birthers, and the deathers. What the hell is next?[/QUOTE] "The Fighting Mongooses" That's a good team name...

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;16680091]True. But one of the arguments against is that it is far easier to amend and interpret than a codified constitution such as the US's. I mean, look at the 2nd amendment. Almost all anti-gun supporters claim that the amendment is poorly written etc. (Though it seems fairly clear what it says to me). I mean, isn't it 75% of Congress for an amendment to the Constitution?[/QUOTE] It's a good majority for an amendment, and it is rarely amended directly. The thing is, though, our Constitution is very clear and precise with its declarations. It was specifically written to be the codified Supreme Law and basis of our nation, whereas the Articles of Confederation were an attempt at something closer to British law and failed miserably. Codification only works when the constitution is clearly written and well thought out. On the US Constitution's part, with the exception of some of the later amendments like the 18th, it is very clear and concise. On the topic of the 2nd amendment, the codification is a very good thing on that behalf. People constantly claim it's poorly written when in reality it is quite clear. We even have a fuckton of commentary from Thomas Jefferson on the subject that clearly states the amendment's intentions, which are A: The establishment of a citizen's militia and B: The right of the People as a whole to maintain the power to overthrow and overwhelm a tyrannical state government. If you're interested, here's the official interpretation of the Constitution based on historical reference and Supreme Court Precedence, validated by the Senate: [url]http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/2008supplement.pdf[/url] The elaboration on the Second Amendment is on page 83. Most people don't realize all of this shit is public domain information. Fuck, the entire US Code is publicly available on the internet. But no, it's like I'm the only person who ever reads that stuff.

[QUOTE=Lankist;16680342]The elaboration on the Second Amendment is on page 83. Most people don't realize all of this shit is public domain information. Fuck, the entire US Code is publicly available on the internet. But no, it's like I'm the only person who ever reads that stuff.[/QUOTE] I'm a politics student, so I've read my share, even though I am more interested in European Politics, it's still important and required reading. Even the French Revolution was affected by the US constitution. I'm currently reading the Federalist Papers, they make good reading.

Excuse me, but I have two semesters in high school government, and a master's degree in Wikipedia. I think I know a little something about the law... :smug:

Why are the americans dabbing in our politics?

[QUOTE=Lankist;16680342]It's a good majority for an amendment, and it is rarely amended directly. The thing is, though, our Constitution is very clear and precise with its declarations. It was specifically written to be the codified Supreme Law and basis of our nation, whereas the Articles of Confederation were an attempt at something closer to British law and failed miserably. Codification only works when the constitution is clearly written and well thought out. On the US Constitution's part, with the exception of some of the later amendments like the 18th, it is very clear and concise. On the topic of the 2nd amendment, the codification is a very good thing on that behalf. People constantly claim it's poorly written when in reality it is quite clear. We even have a fuckton of commentary from Thomas Jefferson on the subject that clearly states the amendment's intentions, which are A: The establishment of a citizen's militia and B: The right of the People as a whole to maintain the power to overthrow and overwhelm a tyrannical state government. If you're interested, here's the official interpretation of the Constitution based on historical reference and Supreme Court Precedence, validated by the Senate: [url]http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/2008supplement.pdf[/url] The elaboration on the Second Amendment is on page 83. Most people don't realize all of this shit is public domain information. Fuck, the entire US Code is publicly available on the internet. But no, it's like I'm the only person who ever reads that stuff.[/QUOTE] Aye. I suppose Codification worked for the United States because of the requirement of some base to start a country, whereas with a country with so much history such as the United Kingdom, codification would take an absolute age and would be impractical, seeing as we have so many historical documents that form it. [editline]01:12AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Athelus;16680414]I'm a politics student, so I've read my share, even though I am more interested in European Politics, it's still important and required reading. Even the French Revolution was affected by the US constitution. I'm currently reading the Federalist Papers, they make good reading.[/QUOTE] You live in the US? Or not as your bottom post suggests I'd be interested to know what your politics syllabus teaches you.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;16680434]Aye. I suppose Codification worked for the United States because of the requirement of some base to start a country, whereas with a country with so much history such as the United Kingdom, codification would take an absolute age and would be impractical, seeing as we have so many historical documents that form it.[/QUOTE] It's of note that most countries adopted Constitutions during their democratic revolution... the UK kinda stumbled into democracy without much upheval, so we kinda developed without one. [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;16680434] You live in the US? I'd be interested to know what your politics syllabus teaches you.[/QUOTE] I do not live in the US... why would I be a member of charter 88?

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;16680434]Aye. I suppose Codification worked for the United States because of the requirement of some base to start a country, whereas with a country with so much history such as the United Kingdom, codification would take an absolute age and would be impractical, seeing as we have so many historical documents that form it.[/QUOTE] Exactly. Britain has centuries on the US. We started mostly from scratch with the goal of reaching that British high standard of enforceable law as quickly as possible. Codified Constitutions are more for the establishment of a new state or the revolution of an existing one, where codification is unnecessary with a nation already steeped in history and legal precedence. If the UK ever goes through a revolutionary change in government a codified constitution would be a good idea, but it's unnecessary for the most part right now.

[QUOTE=Athelus;16680462]It's of note that most countries adopted Constitutions during their democratic revolution... the UK kinda stumbled into democracy without much upheval, so we kinda developed without one. I do not live in the US, University of London.[/QUOTE] One of the better things about having a monarchy I suppose. Sort of why we didn't kill ourselves about slavery. It was more like "Slavery is bad, stop it".

[QUOTE=Athelus;16680414]I'm a politics student, so I've read my share, even though I am more interested in European Politics, it's still important and required reading. Even the French Revolution was affected by the US constitution. I'm currently reading the Federalist Papers, they make good reading.[/QUOTE] Be sure to read through some of T. Jeff's speeches. The dude is fucking amazing. Washington is a fucking prick for taking the first presidency. I mean fuck, the dude who wrote most everything about the US was the THIRD president. The fuck is up with that shit.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;16680495]One of the better things about having a monarchy I suppose. Sort of why we didn't kill ourselves about slavery. It was more like "Slavery is bad, stop it".[/QUOTE] Monarchy didn't work out so well for France...

[QUOTE=Lankist;16680513]Be sure to read through some of T. Jeff's speeches. The dude is fucking amazing. Washington is a fucking prick for taking the first presidency. I mean fuck, the dude who wrote most everything about the US was the THIRD president. The fuck is up with that shit.[/QUOTE] Indeed. Frankly I'm amazed how far Jefferson was ahead of his time. "Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper" Genius. In fact, what you were saying earlier he covers with the ship analogy. "Delay is preferable to error"

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;16680495]One of the better things about having a monarchy I suppose. Sort of why we didn't kill ourselves about slavery. It was more like "Slavery is bad, stop it".[/QUOTE] Well, actually, the Civil War was more about Industrialization v. Agriculturally-centric economy. Slavery wasn't really an issue until halfway into the war. Shit, the Confederate Constitution upheld the ban on the international slave trade. Essentially they didn't ban slavery in its entirety because they needed the financial support of the southern elite, and guess what their conditions were. Essentially the trade of slaves was banned but the stubborn minority of the population paid their way to keep the slaves they already owned.

[QUOTE=Athelus;16680519]Monarchy didn't work out so well for France...[/QUOTE] British Monarchs tended to backpedal more and more, while the French monarch were more "NO WAY -HURGHH"

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;16680542]Indeed. Frankly I'm amazed how far Jefferson was ahead of his time. "Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper" Genius. In fact, what you were saying earlier he covers with the ship analogy. "Delay is preferable to error"[/QUOTE] I base the entirety of my conception of the US's system of Risk being worth the reward of Individual Liberty based on: "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -T Jeff The original balla Also he was all progressive and shit because he bore an illegitimate black child out of wedlock and then set his family slaves free. That seems more human to me than most of our historical figures.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;16680564]British Monarchs tended to backpedal more and more, while the French monarch were more "NO WAY -HURGHH"[/QUOTE] Haha true... they just let people say whatever... all of the influential French philosophers seemed to be living in exile in London...

[QUOTE=Athelus;16680624]Haha true... they just let people say whatever... all of the influential French philosophers seemed to be living in exile in London...[/QUOTE] If it's one thing that Britain tends to do very well, it's create/harbor philosophers.

[QUOTE=Trotsky;16680140]Norway is a different country then America. Norway is a lot more progressive.[/QUOTE] All progressive nations have the same statistic? [editline]08:57PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;16673407]Because the average rightist is definitely shouting that Obama's healthcare plan is evil and that Obama is a dirty pinko of course.[/QUOTE] Egregious assumption, totally unwarranted. Not every rightist is that sensational. What about Pelosi and Hoyer, with their recent rebukings?

[QUOTE=snuwoods;16681053]All progressive nations have the same statistic?[/quote] No. [quote]Egregious assumption, totally unwarranted. Not every rightist is that sensational. What about Pelosi and Hoyer, with their recent rebukings?[/QUOTE] Michael Steele didn't call it socialism?