The culture war crusade on trans issues and politics in the US

[Woodie]

9 hours ago, Takra said:

The constitution itself is very basic document laying out Federal government and its three branches: Legislative, executive and judicial. It was made quite simple as the forefathers feared that states wouldn`t sign more detailed version. So all the freedoms and rights of individuals are ordained by amendments, which of course can be amended again.

Some of them are important, securing rights of citizens, some of them fine tune government, some of them are obsolete. (18th enacted the prohibition and 21st repealed it.) But some of them have obscure wording, and here lies the problem. Scholars have debated at least about 2nd, 9th and 14th amendments since they were drawn and noone has definite answer. And as the Supreme court interpretes the law, it can change citizens rights by it`s decisions. This should be done by congress as the SC should have no such power.

All in all, it`s not great constitution nor is it bad. It only has outdated wording and it was written for a considerably smaller country.

If it was a brilliant one the states couldn`t act against it so blatantly. The pledge of allegiance has unconstitutional parts, book bans are unconstitutional and the rights of the LGBTQ+ community should be covered by the 14th amendment. (With all the other amendments.) But everyone thought this about abortion also. Badly written amendments give false sense of safety.

Biggest problem is the same as everywhere, when people think of constitutional rights they think about THEIR rights, not the rights of their fellow citizens. When this changes, the constitution doesn`t play as big part as it does now.

Thanks for the explanation Takra. I for one cannot understand why an amendment cannot be amended again. Such as the second. It was written, (I take it), when people all acted like Davy Crockett. The argument put up these days by some, is that citizens can bear arms to stop the government from committing an armed takeover of the populace. If it wanted to, there is no way that the populace could stop it, no matter how many Armalites they had. In the meantime there are many people being killed by nutters and their guns. That sure is freedom.

[The-Sith]

On 4/8/2023 at 3:37 AM, Woodie said:

If it is the most brilliant document ever written, why are there so many amendments? I take it that in the US the word amendment means an alteration?. Maybe it means something else?

So who changed what?. It is a serious question. I have never delved into it. Just seemed to be very confusing.

the constitution INCLUDES the amendments.

Amendments are ADDITIONS that come up thru future enlightenments in Congress and some court decisions.

the Constitution was first written in 1787.  Since then.... society has bumped up with more issues that became eventually enshrined in the highest level law.

 

For example FIRST amendment....which came 1789 is for FREEDOM of religion, speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and right to petition the government.

 

THIS WAS TOTALLY RADICAL IN 1789.  And unfortunately it's still radical in 2023 in places like Saudi Arabia, Russia and China .... yet accepted as fundamental to a civil society in the 1900s by almost all Western Nations.

 

FOURTH AMENDMENT also 1789 added that government is not allowed to have unreasonable search and seizure and sets out requirements government must meet to use this power.

Prior to that right....government could just come to your house or person and search you....take what they wanted....etc.... Imagine living in countries that dread that "knock on the door" in the middle of the night when the government comes for you because they don't like something you did like speak your mind at the pub or because they want to take your property. Some Westerners still lived under those conditions 100 years ago and some people still live like that in China and North Korea.

 

These rights from 1789 everyone today takes for granted every single day as if .... "Yah of course I have that right".... but it's these Amendments... the First Ten being called the BILL OF RIGHTS...... that all our respective countries have now decided is the proper way for human beings to live to REDUCE THE POWER of government and GIVE INDIVIDUALS inalienable rights that they get AUTOMATICALLY just by being born.

 

because they are in the Constitution..... you get them just by being born. And most countries adopted these rights into their own constitutions and granted them to their citizens too.

 

 

next time you and your mates are having a pint.... have a toast for the US Constitution. Because prior to that..... it was largely monarchies ruling and except for some limited examples such as Magna Carta in UK that was well prior to the US Constitution.... the basic framework was "THE LAW IS WHATEVER THE KING WANTED IT TO BE THAT DAY."

 

fuck that.

 

[The-Sith]

BTW while all you guys.....American and non America are having a pint to toast the US Constitution.... have a toast to the system in place too.

 

To further answer @Woodie

 

your question....whether these are "ALTERATIONS".... the AMENDMENTS ARE ADDITIONS... that also make up the Constitution.

 

There was only ONE AMENDMENT that was repealed. Repealed means after it came into effect the government....thru the protests of the people....realized they made a mistake and they scratched it thru the government system in place.

 

that is the 18th Amendment which in 1917 prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcohol in America. We all saw the movies about this and the violence it created in society by driving this trade into criminal hands. And so this is the ONLY amendment that was eventually discarded.... in 1933 it was repealed after all that AL Capone drama and people basically voting with their mouths by going to speak easys in mass and drinking in secret locations. Basically the law was untenable and the people spoke by their actions..... and the system removed it.

 

have a toast to that one too.

 

 

[Woodie]

17 hours ago, The-Sith said:

BTW while all you guys.....American and non America are having a pint to toast the US Constitution.... have a toast to the system in place too.

 

To further answer @Woodie

 

your question....whether these are "ALTERATIONS".... the AMENDMENTS ARE ADDITIONS... that also make up the Constitution.

 

There was only ONE AMENDMENT that was repealed. Repealed means after it came into effect the government....thru the protests of the people....realized they made a mistake and they scratched it thru the government system in place.

 

that is the 18th Amendment which in 1917 prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcohol in America. We all saw the movies about this and the violence it created in society by driving this trade into criminal hands. And so this is the ONLY amendment that was eventually discarded.... in 1933 it was repealed after all that AL Capone drama and people basically voting with their mouths by going to speak easys in mass and drinking in secret locations. Basically the law was untenable and the people spoke by their actions..... and the system removed it.

 

have a toast to that one too.

 

 

So the 2nd Amendment could be repealed?. Here is a good idea. Maybe make it align with something that resembles the way that sensible countries do?.

[The-Sith]

6 hours ago, Woodie said:

So the 2nd Amendment could be repealed?. Here is a good idea. Maybe make it align with something that resembles the way that sensible countries do?.

yes 2nd Amendment can be repealed.

 

I hope not.

 

The reason over the past 250 years US has avoided totalitarian oppressive rule..... and also has never been invaded by a foreign power since that time (except for some minor battles in 1812) is partially due to the 2nd Amendment.

 

It's true that having guns everywhere results in more deaths here. But countries like Germany, Russia, France, China, Spain, India plus many many others have been invaded by foreign powers.... or had oppressive governments..... plus massive genocide of millions of people....... or even tens of millions of people which..... when the murder is coming from the government or a foreign power...... Good luck with that while the 2nd Amendment stands.

Governments are the biggest murderers out there..... including the US government.

Good luck to Dems or Republicans or US Army trying to subjugate their people like we saw in Europe and Asia in WWI (and after) which resulted in unprecedented kills in a systematic method.

 

 

Good luck to foreign powers that may want to even try to invade America....like France got invaded.... Poland got invaded..... Iraq got invaded..... etc.... etc.....

 

 

It's so easy to think 2nd Amendment is not sensible. Because so much gun violence has emerged. But it's main purpose has worked. 

 

[Rom]

I disagree with the above.  There is no evidence that having guns in the hands of private citizens is a deterrent against foreign invasion let alone a proven defense.  I repeat: NOWHERE or EVER in Human History have private citizens with guns stopped invading armies (examples to the contrary ??? please The-Sith).  The US was never invaded because it has the most powerful military on earth since the 19th century and is separated by 2 seas from other military powers.  Its land neighbors Mexico and Canada are no match for the US if they tried to invade.  If u want a country with sensible gun restrictions that does not get invaded take Britain which has not been invaded since Viking times.  It was not citizens with guns that stopped Hitler.  It was the RAF and the Royal Navy.

As to the Second Amendment, it is a perversion of reason and its invocation to own guns underscores how evil Americans can be, including their constitutionalist judges.  It explicitly says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Anyone who can read English has to infer that "the right of the people to bear arms" was originally framed in the context of "a well regulatedt militia."  It's a case of anachronic drafting (too erudite!) by whoever originally wrote it and should have written instead:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms under a well regulated Militia, which is necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

Not to mention that "the arms" the founding fathers had in mind were flintlock one-shot rifles... Not machine guns.  If so,  American citizens might as well have the right to privately own howitzers, attack helicopters and nuclear submarines.

It's all sickening.

[Woodie]

1 hour ago, Rom said:

I disagree with the above.  There is no evidence that having guns in the hands of private citizens is a deterrent against foreign invasion let alone a proven defense.  I repeat: NOWHERE or EVER in Human History have private citizens with guns stopped invading armies (examples to the contrary ??? please The-Sith).  The US was never invaded because it has the most powerful military on earth since the 19th century and is separated by 2 seas from other military powers.  Its land neighbors Mexico and Canada are no match for the US if they tried to invade.  If u want a country with sensible gun restrictions that does not get invaded take Britain which has not been invaded since Viking times.  It was not citizens with guns that stopped Hitler.  It was the RAF and the Royal Navy.

As to the Second Amendment, it is a perversion of reason and its invocation to own guns underscores how evil Americans can be, including their constitutionalist judges.  It explicitly says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Anyone who can read English has to infer that "the right of the people to bear arms" was originally framed in the context of "a well regulatedt militia."  It's a case of anachronic drafting (too erudite!) by whoever originally wrote it and should have written instead:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms under a well regulated Militia, which is necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

Not to mention that "the arms" the founding fathers had in mind were flintlock one-shot rifles... Not machine guns.  If so,  American citizens might as well have the right to privately own howitzers, attack helicopters and nuclear submarines.

It's all sickening.

Agreed Rom. The whole situation in the US has got out of hand.

I notice no one to my knowledge has mentioned the NRA. A very powerful lobby group. It must be, with the US having something like 350 million guns for a population including kids, of about 330 million.

I still remember a friend of mine who arrived in the US some years ago, and was picked up by a business collegue at the airport and on the way home stopped at a gunshop and came out with one of those Oozie type things and casually placed it on the floor of the car. When asked what it was for he said,"oh just going to try it out on some feral animals up in the hills".

[Pdoggg]

3 hours ago, Rom said:

It's all sickening.

About an hour ago there was another workplace mass shooting.  This one was in Louisville.  The governor of Kentucky urged people to pray for the families involved.

[Pulci Gorgon]

About one week ago, we were just discovering the Republican preoccupation with transgender issues. Not that I don't have my opinion on the second amendment, but couldn't we deal with transgenders instead ? 
I'd prefer to read a bit more about the Sith's finding traps in the USA and complain I can't find anyone equivalent here in Europe. 

[Zeppie]

On 4/7/2023 at 5:11 AM, Soju said:

Are you going to refuse the Social Security benefits when the time comes?

Since I have paid into SS for 45 years, yes I am going to get some of MY money back.  I would be foolish not to take back some of the money that was taken from me.  No one gave me the option not to have my it forced away from me.  So when the time came, yes, i asked for some of it back.  If I was giving a choice between having my money taken or not having my money taken, guess which one I would have chosen!  But, since the central gov decided, that they know best what to do with my money, I was not given the freedom, to make that choice.  The Gov knows what's best for me and are diligent stewarts of my money and freedoms.  Go Socialism.......

[Zeppie]

1 hour ago, Pdoggg said:

About an hour ago there was another workplace mass shooting.  This one was in Louisville.  The governor of Kentucky urged people to pray for the families involved.

Religion, belief in God, worship, has dramatically decreased in America.  The standards, morality, courtesy, manners have all decreased in America.  The standards in our institutions have all fallen.  Shooting that are one way or another tied to schools, have been been documented since 1940's.  Yet, we don't harden the schools, or the malls.  Instead it gives the politicians arguing points, but no solutions, just arguments.  Politicians, do not fix issues, they use them to divide us.  Abortion, guns, healthcare, poverty, ets., are all the same old arguments.  The truth is they don't want to fix issues, they just want to argue and seize power.  The Gov is not for the people, it is for themselves.  Hasn't murders been going on since the time of man.  Firearms didn't began its ascend until the 13th century, and became just another tool for murder.  

 

[soiboy]

Can we wrap this thread up now?  Say with a POV pic of a hairy beer-bellied LB monger looking down while getting head from a total cutie?  Seriously, I'd settle for that at this point....

[Takra]

17 minutes ago, soiboy said:

Can we wrap this thread up now?  Say with a POV pic of a hairy beer-bellied LB monger looking down while getting head from a total cutie?  Seriously, I'd settle for that at this point....

There should always be time for constitutional debate :)  But Sith`s first post was almost perfect explanation of what`s happening. Add to that media outlets with political agenda and social media giving platform to insignificant people with baseless opinions. Then you have the whole picture. 

have no pics right now, hopefully some else finds one!

[Zeppie]

6 hours ago, Rom said:

I disagree with the above.  There is no evidence that having guns in the hands of private citizens is a deterrent against foreign invasion let alone a proven defense.  I repeat: NOWHERE or EVER in Human History have private citizens with guns stopped invading armies (examples to the contrary ??? please The-Sith).  The US was never invaded because it has the most powerful military on earth since the 19th century and is separated by 2 seas from other military powers.  Its land neighbors Mexico and Canada are no match for the US if they tried to invade.  If u want a country with sensible gun restrictions that does not get invaded take Britain which has not been invaded since Viking times.  It was not citizens with guns that stopped Hitler.  It was the RAF and the Royal Navy.

As to the Second Amendment, it is a perversion of reason and its invocation to own guns underscores how evil Americans can be, including their constitutionalist judges.  It explicitly says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Anyone who can read English has to infer that "the right of the people to bear arms" was originally framed in the context of "a well regulatedt militia."  It's a case of anachronic drafting (too erudite!) by whoever originally wrote it and should have written instead:

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms under a well regulated Militia, which is necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

Not to mention that "the arms" the founding fathers had in mind were flintlock one-shot rifles... Not machine guns.  If so,  American citizens might as well have the right to privately own howitzers, attack helicopters and nuclear submarines.

It's all sickening.

So you are suggesting that America was a colony of Britain, so was not an invasion of America, when they sent there ships and armies to America to squash the Americans independence as a sovereign country.  May I remind you that France and Spain also attempted colonizing America, not just the British.

America did not have a standing army or navy,  Instead they had civilians with guns, that stood up to Britain and defeated their might Armies.  So, I don't agree with you thinking.

"Not to mention that "the arms" the founding fathers had in mind were flintlock one-shot rifles... Not machine guns."

The founding fathers, knew what Tyranny was and how it works, in all forms..  They set about to write the Constitution to prevent Tyranny, and give the rights to the people, allowing for freedom.  They also new that an unarmed citizenry was an exposed, helpless citizenry.  Also, you cannot own a machine gun in America, unless you have a special license (they are very expensive and very few are issued).  So the idea we have machine guns is blatantly false.  

[Rom]

The American founding fathers were enlightened politicians for their times and advanced elected representation in America at a time when virtually all the world had autocratic kings (kudos to George Washington for declining to become one).  But they were far from seeking to "abolish TYRANNY" as slavery persisted for 100 years and women could not vote for 150 and native-americans continued to be slaughtered and driven from their lands even faster than under British rule.  It stands to reason these same selectively freedom-granting founding fathers would not want to give everyone the freedom of owning a gun and they made sure to caveat it with "the well regulated militia" stipulation which the proclaimers of the second amendment cynically ignore.

As to the machine guns, yeah it's the semiautomatic versions that fire a shot every 2 seconds that are used in the periodic US school killings.   Makes a world of difference in terms of safety don't it?

As to the American independence war, the American patriot forces were supported by the French and the Spanish in organizing and leading able bodied men into armies.  It was not Mel Gibson, nor farmers with guns that drove the British away.

As to trans civil rights in America I am all for it, but am against trans women being allowed to compete with genetic women in all sports.  It's blatantly unfair as long as males of the human species are genetically coded to be taller and stronger than the females.

[Zeppie]

On 4/7/2023 at 5:49 AM, Woodie said:

I really struggle to understand what "freedoms", the US has that other western Democracies dont have.

 

I might point out that the US has been at war for all but about 17 years of it's existence. That's a good example to set.

Woodie, your first question an easy question to ask, but an in-depth response required to answer.  I am not a scholar of the Constitution, but I will do my best to respond. 

The key features are;

1. The US Constitution is codified constitution and entrenched. (you don't have this, you have uncodified and unentrenched).  Bottom line, we are a single contained document and requires 2/3 of congress to change.  Yours is changed every time a new law is passed. You have no specific feature for amendment.

2. Separation of powers.  (you have partial)

3. Division of powers between federal and state gov's. (you have parliamentary sovereignty only)

4. We have Federalism ( government which includes the power of the central government as well as local state governments).  You have Devolution, a delegation of power from the central government to local governments.

As for wars, 2 of them were to save europe, I hope you didn't mind.  Another was to save South Korea from death and enslavement.  Im sure they are not complaining.  As for VN, that was to stop communism spreading in indochina. The communist were attacking south VN.  In the end it was a mistake.

But, I think you will find there are only about 22 countries that Britain didn't colonize (thus invade and take over).  You are a sorry lot to suggest against others for wars.  

I have nothing against Britain and still consider them an ally.  Your smartest move of late was Brexit.  I am a fan of Churchill and Margaret Thatcher and the late Queen (RIP), all true patriots.

 

 

[Zeppie]

23 minutes ago, Rom said:

The American founding fathers were enlightened politicians for their times and advanced elected representation in America at a time when virtually all the world had autocratic kings (kudos to George Washington for declining to become one).  But they were far from seeking to "abolish TYRANNY" as slavery persisted for 100 years and women could not vote for 150 and native-americans continued to be slaughtered and driven from their lands even faster than under British rule.  It stands to reason these same selectively freedom-granting founding fathers would not want to give everyone the freedom of owning a gun and they made sure to caveat it with "the well regulated militia" stipulation which the proclaimers of the second amendment cynically ignore.

As to the machine guns, yeah it's the semiautomatic versions that fire a shot every 2 seconds that are used in the periodic US school killings.   Makes a world of difference in terms of safety don't it?

As to the American independence war, the American patriot forces were supported by the French and the Spanish in organizing and leading able bodied men into armies.  It was not Mel Gibson, nor farmers with guns that drove the British away.

As to trans civil rights in America I am all for it, but am against trans women being allowed to compete with genetic women in all sports.  It's blatantly unfair as long as males of the human species are genetically coded to be taller and stronger than the females.

You point out hypocrisies' of our government and people.  The constitution did not ban hypocrisies.  The constitution did not ban Tyranny from men's hearts and goals.  You will find that from a different source.  The French (mainly) as well as Spain and Dutch, did aid in the fight against Britain.  As the Hessians were in aid of Britain.  

You stated machine guns, I corrected you.

Trans do not have the right for separate rights, not should whites or blacks or asians or hispanics, etc.....

[Zeppie]

On 4/8/2023 at 10:11 AM, soiboy said:

 

https://charlotteclymer.substack.com/p/kid-rock-doesnt-know-how-to-shoot#details

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Clymer

 

I don't think he is any more irrelatent, then you are.  I personally like him.  When you shoved your beliefs into someone's face, are you surprised to get a reaction.  It is one thing to believe what you chose to believe, it is another to tell others they are wrong.  If you put yourself in the public eye, to sponsor yourself or cause, do you not believe there will be push back.  What's great about America is the ability to do all of the above.  But, right now there is a movement to stifle free speech and to persecute those you don't agree with.  What's going on in America is to transform America into a country it doesn't recognize.  When America is no longer America, the impact to the World will be significant.

[seven]

Howard gets it right again.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/howard-stern-dumbfounded-over-kid-190823557.html

Howard Stern Is ‘Dumbfounded’ Over Kid Rock & Travis Tritt’s Transphobia

“I thought there must be a piece of this story that I’m missing,” the host said during his SiriusXM radio show on Monday (April 10). “I’m not bothered by gay people or transsexual people. They don’t impact my life, they don’t hurt my life. I love when people are in love. You wanna be a woman? Be a woman. You wanna be a dude, be a dude. Be whatever you f—ing want. As long as you ain’t hurting anybody, I’m on your team.”

[Zeppie]

7-11.....I agree. You leave me alone and I leave you alone and we all go about our business in a happy way (common sense). If I had a trans living next to me, I would be friendly, nice and if she cute, would barrow a cup of sugar.

But, thats not whats going on in America.

This is a much bigger issue than stated above.  When you bring in crossdressers into child's kindergarten class and they perform in sexual conduct.  When a trans molests a young girl in the girls school bathroom, and then they move that same molester to a new school and he did the same thing, again.  The school board covered up the incident, and then stated at the school board meeting, that no sexual incident occurred.  When the father of the child that was molested, came forward at the school board meeting and brought this issue to confront the school board, they denied it and the father was arrested by the cops, for disorderly conduct.  He was wrestled to the ground, cuffed and jailed.  All along the parents at the board meeting were totally unaware of the molestation and that the molester was transferred to a different school, to repeat the same issue on another child. That's endangerment.

When schools experiment with your child and encourage your child to feel your someone else, that's brainwashing and manipulation of a very young person, it's at it's worse.  All without the knowledge of the parents.  That's pure evil.  This has become much more prevalent then one would believe, in our school institutions.  They are fucking with their young minds, and can do irreparable damage.  But, they don't care, cos they have an ideology and casualties is the price to be paid, for there madness.   

 

[Zeppie]

4 minutes ago, Soju said:

All good Zeppie, I'm moving on from this thread...was just trying to lighten it up with my prior social securtity reference.
However, do be careful not to collect more than you paid.... that's how they get you. You might end up waving the evil commie hammer and sickle flag.

I will try to be careful Soju, and don't think I didn't catch your subliminal point.......Ha Ha, very funny.  Have a good day, and yes, it is time to lighten.  Take care.

[Woodie]

4 hours ago, Zeppie said:

Woodie, your first question an easy question to ask, but an in-depth response required to answer.  I am not a scholar of the Constitution, but I will do my best to respond. 

The key features are;

1. The US Constitution is codified constitution and entrenched. (you don't have this, you have uncodified and unentrenched).  Bottom line, we are a single contained document and requires 2/3 of congress to change.  Yours is changed every time a new law is passed. You have no specific feature for amendment.

2. Separation of powers.  (you have partial)

3. Division of powers between federal and state gov's. (you have parliamentary sovereignty only)

4. We have Federalism ( government which includes the power of the central government as well as local state governments).  You have Devolution, a delegation of power from the central government to local governments.

As for wars, 2 of them were to save europe, I hope you didn't mind.  Another was to save South Korea from death and enslavement.  Im sure they are not complaining.  As for VN, that was to stop communism spreading in indochina. The communist were attacking south VN.  In the end it was a mistake.

But, I think you will find there are only about 22 countries that Britain didn't colonize (thus invade and take over).  You are a sorry lot to suggest against others for wars.  

I have nothing against Britain and still consider them an ally.  Your smartest move of late was Brexit.  I am a fan of Churchill and Margaret Thatcher and the late Queen (RIP), all true patriots.

 

 

Just a quick response.

I live in Australia. We do have a constitution. Also we have Federal and State governments. Whether that is a bonus I don't know. Government is based on a federation which was setup in 1901. One which has proved to be ok, except for a few examples of stupidity like the rail gauge being different in neighboring states of NSW and QLD.

We also have compulsory voting. Whether that is a bonus I am not sure.. How could someone with almost zero knowledge of what is going on in the world and knows more about the Kardashians than local politics is beyond me. You actually don't have to pick out a candidate. You can put a line through all candidates and it will be classed as an invalid vote. You can be prosecuted for not turning up to vote.

As for the Queen and Churchill. Yes, both worthy of acclaim, especially the Queen. Churchill not as much due to his performance during the First World War when he was partly responsible for the shambles that was the Allied landing in Turkey . Troops from New Zealand, Australia and other countries took part. Thousands were slaughtered as the British troops sunbathed and swam in another part of the area. We have a remembrance day on the 25th April named Anzac day. As for Thatcher, she wreaked havoc while trying to do a Reagan on Britain.

[Zeppie]

2 hours ago, Woodie said:

Just a quick response.

I live in Australia. We do have a constitution. Also we have Federal and State governments. Whether that is a bonus I don't know. Government is based on a federation which was setup in 1901. One which has proved to be ok, except for a few examples of stupidity like the rail gauge being different in neighboring states of NSW and QLD.

We also have compulsory voting. Whether that is a bonus I am not sure.. How could someone with almost zero knowledge of what is going on in the world and knows more about the Kardashians than local politics is beyond me. You actually don't have to pick out a candidate. You can put a line through all candidates and it will be classed as an invalid vote. You can be prosecuted for not turning up to vote.

As for the Queen and Churchill. Yes, both worthy of acclaim, especially the Queen. Churchill not as much due to his performance during the First World War when he was partly responsible for the shambles that was the Allied landing in Turkey . Troops from New Zealand, Australia and other countries took part. Thousands were slaughtered as the British troops sunbathed and swam in another part of the area. We have a remembrance day on the 25th April named Anzac day. As for Thatcher, she wreaked havoc while trying to do a Reagan on Britain.

My bad, I pegged you for a Brit.  Not sure if you are a citizen, born and raised, or just living there, but i would worn you about china, but you may already be weary.  I am not impressed with some of your leaders, they seem to be a bit repressive.  I will admit I have not study closely, just small bits and pieces.  I will say the impression i had of Australia was shattered when they turned in their guns.  As for Thatcher, I maintain my positive opinion of her.  Anyhow, good luck.

PS.  Did you catch that Macron, just said fuck you America, I'm going with china.  Grateful fucker.

[Zeppie]

On 4/8/2023 at 3:44 AM, Woodie said:

His appearance brings up a question. Where can you buy those hats with the brim on the back?. All I can seem to find are ones with it on the front.

It's a way of letting the light in Woodie, you should try it someday........

[Pdoggg]

4 hours ago, Zeppie said:

PS.  Did you catch that Macron, just said fuck you

He said a huge fuck you to people on pensions.   If the French had guns they would do more than just burn buildings. Guess they will have to settle for the guillotine.

Supposedly the reason FDR set up SS the way he did, having workers and employers contribute, was to make it extremely difficult for Congress to abolish SS in the future since people paid into it for all their lives. Brilliant move by FDR.

Freedom is great. It is somewhat ironic though that those who shout freedom the loudest usually want to restrict the freedom of women who want abortions forcing them into the slavery/forced servitude of motherhood for the next 20 years. In fairness she is only required to be a slave for 9 months and could give up her kid for adoption.  Serves her right for opening her thighs.