Texas shooting 19 dead.

The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
If all were fine with slavery, it would still be with us today. The truth would be closer to "those in power set the rules and it takes bravery and numbers to fight that."
Being money-driven or power-driven is not new.
If anyone thinks that those who enslaved didn't know it was a huge transgression/very, very wrong, that's, at least, a naïve take on the situation.
 
No, but the authors of the 2nd Amendment believed that it was in government’s nature to degrade into tyranny, and this was why absolutist language was used in the 2nd Amendment.

For heaven's sake, when was that? 250 years ago? Has it not occurred to you that the world is a very different place now than it was in the days when America was a fragmented nation with no effective central government, no army, no police force, and where gangs of armed hoodlums confiscated land and killed whoever they wanted without fear of justice? It's no wonder that there was a right to bear arms. But to pretend that things are just the same now, except that it's the federal government who is your brutal, violent enemy, waiting to kill and rob you, is utterly paranoid conspiracy talk, and the sort of nonsense that feeds the very problem that you pretend you are trying to solve. The US is now a democracy, albeit an imperfect one -- just like all democracies. If you don't like the government you vote them out. You don't have to pretend you need to buy assault rifles to protect yourself. That's utterly pathetic.

I’ve read up a great deal about antifa.

Hmm, and I'm sure you've spread your reading fairly across all sides of the argument. LOL.
 
The 2nd Amendment may have been written “250 years ago”, but even today we have a Prime Minister that lies, cheats and usurps the law by simply changing it as and when it suits him!

Apparently, all you do under the new “Ministerial Code” is:
  1. Get caught.
  2. Admit you were wrong.
  3. Apologise for getting caught.
  4. Carry on as a Minister.
Sometimes I wish we had a written Constitution that people fight to protect!
:hat:

PS
@Haversham also posted “The US is now a democracy, albeit an imperfect one -- just like all democracies.”

Please don’t confuse the UK with a “Democracy”!

The people of the UK are “Subjects” ruled by a Monarch.

The armed Forces and the Government both swear allegiance to the Monarch.

That IS NOT a Democracy! Sorry.
 
Last edited:
For heaven's sake, when was that? 250 years ago? Has it not occurred to you that the world is a very different place now than it was in the days when America was a fragmented nation with no effective central government, no army, no police force, and where gangs of armed hoodlums confiscated land and killed whoever they wanted without fear of justice? It's no wonder that there was a right to bear arms. But to pretend that things are just the same now, except that it's the federal government who is your brutal, violent enemy, waiting to kill and rob you, is utterly paranoid conspiracy talk, and the sort of nonsense that feeds the very problem that you pretend you are trying to solve. The US is now a democracy, albeit an imperfect one -- just like all democracies. If you don't like the government you vote them out. You don't have to pretend you need to buy assault rifles to protect yourself. That's utterly pathetic.
That was well-said and to the point. I don't say that too often. Cheers.
 
Please don’t confuse the UK with a “Democracy”!
Note: keep in mind that I know very little about many things and I'm not taking the p*** (did I use that correctly? To this day, even though Clint schooled me on the "how," I'm leery of applying it incorrectly). I kind of thought you have a somewhat similar setup to the US? I thought the Queen was a figurehead. I also assumed there are a lot of checks in place so no, one person can upset the country?
I'm treading carefully here (maybe overly careful), making no judgements, out of respect. Just getting the thoughts and info.
If you know me, I never comment on the UK state of affairs (especially football) since I know next to nothing about it.
 
The USA is a “Republic” (like France) where the Armed Forces and Government both swear allegiance to the “Citizens” through an elected President who is subjected to a limited term of office.

The UK is a “Monarchy” where the Armed Forces and Government (even the opposition!) swear allegiance to an unelected and hereditary Monarch who rules their “Subjects” through an elected Prime Minister; who must get the permission of the Monarch before a Government is formed.

The Monarch and family have the ultimate power of “Influence without responsibility!”
:hat:
 
David>

No worries. You're not far off the mark there at all. We *should* have enough checks and balances, but Johnson has stretched it. Nowhere near to the extent than Trump has in the US (and he still continues to post a threat). As for the Queen, neither here nor there directly, except that that the monarchy in general does give an advantage to conservative parties.
 
Please don’t confuse the UK with a “Democracy”!

The people of the UK are “Subjects” ruled by a Monarch.

The armed Forces and the Government both swear allegiance to the Monarch.

That IS NOT a Democracy! Sorry.


The UK is a parliamentary democracy.
We are subjects in title only because the monarchy have zero power.
As for Johnson, he has shown contempt for rules and the truth all his working life so we shouldn’t be surprised that he does so now.
So we do of course have the option to vote against his party at the next general election - which is literally democracy
 
The UK is a parliamentary democracy.
We are subjects in title only because the monarchy have zero power.
……..
Oh you are so wrong!

Royalty have the ultimate power of “Influence without responsibility!”

They can influence what happens, but they have no responsibility if what they ‘suggested’ goes belly up!

A good example is who gets the top awards. Why do people want to be made a “Knight of this that and everything”?

If you think it’s so that they get better seats in restaurants etc then fine, but it’s actually so that they can wield more influence but still have no responsibility!
:hat:
 
President Boris anyone.


But saying "President Boris" (or Farage, or Corbyn, or whoever your particular bogeyman is) isn't in itself an argument for either abolishing the Royal family or becomning a republic. Other countries manage this in much more sensible ways. And we don't have to always look towards the US; there are plenty of better examples than their antique constitition and set-up.
 
Last edited:
But saying "President Boris" (or Farage, or Corbyn, or whoever your particular bogeyman is) isn't in itself an argument for either abolishing the Royal famil

For me it is exactly the reason and as the chart I posted shows the majority of us don't want a president
 
President Boris anyone.
He will be gone within the next year or so🙏, unlike the Monarchy that is set for generations to come; regardless of how corrupt, stupid, malicious etc etc etc they may be!
:hat:

PS
Try singing “Idi Amin” to replace the word “Queen” in the UK National Anthem.

It gives a much clearer indication of what is being requested and the true purpose of the song.
:D
 
Oh you are so wrong!

Royalty have the ultimate power of “Influence without responsibility!”

They can influence what happens, but they have no responsibility if what they ‘suggested’ goes belly up!

A good example is who gets the top awards. Why do people want to be made a “Knight of this that and everything”?

If you think it’s so that they get better seats in restaurants etc then fine, but it’s actually so that they can wield more influence but still have no responsibility!
:hat:
Nothing you have written changes the fact that the UK is a parliamentary democracy and we can vote parties in or out as we see fit.
This post actually just looks like you’re trying to argue for the sake of arguing because you don’t actually make any relevant points other than people with money can influence others.
 
We *should* have enough checks and balances, but Johnson has stretched it. Nowhere near to the extent than Trump has in the US (and he still continues to post a threat).

I think the problem is that politicians in both countries are given quite a lot of freedom and privilege to be able to do what is required to govern the country. There's more of a code of conduct than hard and fast rules/laws, with the idea being that people use their common sense when a line has been crossed.

The problem is that they've both abusing that privilege for their personal benefit, and stacked the system to allow them to keep it that way. Members of the parties behind them have too much skin in the game and are too afraid to do anything about it.

The whole system needs desperate reform - I hope that the UK can achieve that before we go too far down the route of authoritarianism.
 
Nothing you have written changes the fact that the UK is a parliamentary democracy and we can vote parties in or out as we see fit.
……
Okay, here’s a completely new slant on the UK’s “parliamentary democracy”!

This particular government (with the Monarchs consent) is currently campaigning for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights.

Why? Here’s a clue:

“In 2004 the 13th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights became binding on the United Kingdom, prohibiting the restoration of the death penalty for as long as the UK is a party to the convention.”

Want to have a guess as to who will benefit from the reintroduction of the death penalty in the UK?
 
Our three, separate branches (executive, legislative, judicial) seems like a pretty good design.
That is, until you get a large number of people willing to stomp the whole idea of it into the ground, as was in the process of happening with the previous president.
One of our many problems with our gun control is that an effective bill can be passed in one legislative branch (House) and then die in the other (Senate). That is happening now with guns, even though the Democrats have a slight majority with the VP being the tie breaker. The bill is one that would close loopholes in the sale of guns. Tactics are used by the minority party to give a slow death to laws they don't want passed. There is a solid majority of Americans that want guns regulated but it doesn't matter because of the abuses of power in our federal government.
 
Want to have a guess as to who will benefit from the reintroduction of the death penalty in the UK?

Where is it said the Tories want the death penalty reinstating?

Having read what May said in 2016 it looks like more were against the idea than for it.



UK must leave European convention on human rights, says Theresa May (2016)

Critics condemn home secretary’s remarks, which put her on collision course with cabinet colleagues

Britain should withdraw from the European convention on human rights regardless of the EU referendum result, Theresa May has said, in comments that contradict ministers within her own government.

The shadow justice secretary, Charles Falconer, said he was appalled by the home secretary’s comments, which he described as “so ignorant, so illiberal, so misguided”, while the Tory MP and former attorney general Dominic Grieve said he was disappointed by the intervention.

May used a speech in central London to argue that it was the convention, rather than the EU, that had caused the extradition of extremist Abu Hamza to be delayed for years and that had almost stopped the deportation of Abu Qatada.

“The ECHR can bind the hands of parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights,” she said.

“So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this: if we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its court.”

The home secretary, who is seen as a potential future Tory leader, used the speech to express support for membership of the EU, but also to reach out to the Eurosceptic wing of the party.

But her comments place her on a collision course with cabinet colleagues, including the justice secretary, Michael Gove, who has put forward plans for a British bill of rights based on Britain staying inside the convention.

Downing Street conceded that the comments did highlight “differences” between May and David Cameron, although it warned against overstating them.

“The PM has made clear he wants to see reform of the ECHR and has ruled absolutely nothing out if we don’t achieve that,” his official spokeswoman said. But sources admitted that the government’s position did not currently require withdrawal from the ECHR.

Labour’s Falconer accused May of “sacrificing Britain’s 68-year-old commitment to human rights for her own miserable Tory leadership ambitions”.

“That is so ignorant, so illiberal, so misguided,” he said. “Ignorant because you have to be a member of the ECHR to be a member of the EU. The European Union itself agrees to abide by the ECHR. Illiberal because … there has to be a source external to a government determining what human rights are.

“And misguided because it will so damage the standing of the UK, a country that above all plays by the rules and that is going around the world saying we should comply as a world with human rights. This is so, so appalling.”

But it was not only Labour that reacted negatively to May’s speech. Grieve said he was “disappointed because it shows a lack of understanding of the positive impact the ECHR is for the EU”.

He accused May of underestimating the positive impact that the Abu Qatada case had on the Jordanian justice system and pointed out that both he and Abu Hamza were removed.

He said he was pleased that May was backing the EU, but warned: “Pulling out of the ECHR would be damaging to Britain’s international standing. It is a central pillar of foreign policy.”

May used the rest of her speech to attempt to strike a balanced and “optimistic” tone in favour of EU membership, with comments that will be interpreted as swipes at the prime minister, including a claim that the UK had forgotten how to lead in Europe.

The home secretary denied that the UK was too small to thrive alone, saying: “I do not want to stand here and insult people’s intelligence by claiming that everything about the EU is perfect, that membership of the EU is wholly good, nor do I believe those that say the sky will fall in if we vote to leave.”

May appeared to concede that immigration from within the EU could not be controlled as long as Britain was a member, but she insisted that there was no “single bullet” to fix the immigration problem. She took a harder line than the government on the issue of new countries joining the EU, including Albania, Serbia and Turkey – in comments seized on by Vote Leave.

“We have to ask ourselves, is it really right that the EU should just continue to expand, conferring upon all new member states all the rights of membership?” said May, who also argued that leaving the EU could stop the development of the single market, lose investors, push Britain backwards on international trade and threaten the UK.

“I do not want the European Union to cause the destruction of an older and much more precious union, the union between England and Scotland,” she said.

May argued that no country had ever been totally sovereign and added that international institutions always required compromises.

“She seems not to have understood the power and forcefulness of the European court of justice,” he said. “If we pulled out of the ECHR, for which we would get much opprobrium, and stay in the EU, all that would happen is the the European court of justice will do exactly what the ECHR did before but with more force, because the charter of fundamental rights is the European convention plus, not
minus. Logically, it does not stand up.”

He said it would be better to leave the EU and stick with the European Convention on Human Rights.

“The ECHR did have an expansionist phase and that broadly came to an end after parliament’s decision on prisoner votes. Staying within the convention is sensible, having a British Bill of Rights is sensible, but staying within the EU you get all that and more,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ion-on-human-rights-theresa-may-eu-referendum
 
Last edited:
Back
Top