Merkins 2008

skribb wrote

Monarchy is just dictatorship with a different name...

In an absolute monarchy perhaps but certainly not in a constitutional monarchy, simple because the monarch isn't the head of the government, which would make it hard to dictate things. Or do you really think Canada has the same political system as North Korea?

[Sternwallow]

Smellyoldgit wrote

I must admit - it's one hell of a dilemma to deal with. I hate the concept of power & privilege being inherited through birth & wealth - but the thought of leaders being totally exposed to the frailty of commercial gain is getting close to equally vile. Take the money out of the monarchy - and I suppose you're getting nearer to something more tolerable.

Theoretically, if the monarch "owns" everything in the country, they can't be bribed or coerced by commercial interests, right?

Sternwallow wrote

Theoretically, if the monarch "owns" everything in the country, they can't be bribed or coerced by commercial interests, right?

Presumably, thought I can't think of anywhere that has this system.

[Eva]

PR had a woman governor last term....and she got divorced and re-married for her third time while in office....

[anthonyjfuchs]

GaryM wrote

Ah, it's only sounds odd to an American...

Oh, I know. America likes to hype herself as some kind of progressive, forward-thinking nation (to the point of being called "herself" even), but it's really just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. 230 years of Caucasian male rulers demonstrates just how "progressive" this empire is.

GaryM wrote

I like the monarchy, it means that you can be against the head of the government without being against the head of state. I'm not a fan of Tony Blair but if somehow he became President tomorrow I imagine it would be harder to openly abuse him (as people in Britain are fond of doing). To those of you living in states with Presidents - is the President automatically respected simply because he (or she) is the President?

English Bob from Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven wrote

[discussing the assassination of President Garfield] If you were to try to assassination a king, sir, the... how shall I say it? The aura of royalty would cause you to miss. But, the president...
[chuckles] I mean, why not shoot the president?

[Professor Chaos]

New Zealand thinks we're starting to do better.

anthonyjfuchs wrote

Oh, I know. America likes to hype herself as some kind of progressive, forward-thinking nation (to the point of being called "herself" even), but it's really just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. 230 years of Caucasian male rulers demonstrates just how "progressive" this empire is.

Yup 230 years of male caucasian rulers while countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan have voted women into office. I'll do a search for it but didn't some relatively recent poll results indicate that quite a large percentage of Americans wouldn't want to vote for a woman?

Nevermind. I stand corrected. There is hope yet for America.

Currently 92 percent of Americans say they'd vote for a well qualified female presidential candidate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1281319.shtml

[Waddlie]

skribb wrote

Monarchy is just dictatorship with a different name...

Uh, no. Dictators have power. The Queen's powers are entirely ceremonious and she holds no real power at all. Americans I've come across seem to think that the Queen's existence means that the English (or others living in a monarchy) don't live in a true democracy because of the monarch's existence but in reality that's a bunch of crap. We do have barriers to democracy in this country (the house of lords and lack of proportional representation being the two biggest), but the monarachy is not one of them.

Oh and Smelly... Jack Staw for PM? You're shitting me right? Did you see what he did to the home office? :cry:

Waddlie wrote

Uh, no. Dictators have power.

If Elizabeth II was a dictator I guess she'd be the most powerful in history is she is the Queen of 1.7 billion people.

Metman07 wrote

Nevermind. I stand corrected. There is hope yet for America.

Currently 92 percent of Americans say they'd vote for a well qualified female presidential candidate.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1281319.shtml

Hope for America? Not so much if you're an atheist running for president. Look at the results of this poll:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.c...ygallup_1.html

If Your Party Nominated A Generally Well-Qualified Candidate for WH '08 Who Was ___, Would You Vote For That Person?

Yes No
Catholic 95% 4%
Black 94 5
Jewish 92 7
A woman 88 11
Hispanic 87 12
Mormon 72 24
Married for third time 67 30
72 years old 57 42
A homosexual 55 43
An atheist 45 53

How about a draft Pete Stark for Prez in '08 movement? I mean, Unitarian is as close to reality we will get in this country.

[Professor Chaos]

Screw Pete Stark. I’m horribly, horribly disappointed to find out that a 75-year old, 35-year incumbent is the mystery man. He’s obviously comfortable with outing himself only because he has nothing to lose. I guess you have to start somewhere, but I was hoping for a little bit more than a guy who cannot have any further political aspirations.

If this had come out of nowhere, I’d be ecstatic, but with all the buildup to the announcement, I’m left feeling more disappointment than joy.

Professor Chaos wrote

Screw Pete Stark. I’m horribly, horribly disappointed to find out that a 75-year old, 35-year incumbent is the mystery man. He’s obviously comfortable with outing himself only because he has nothing to lose. I guess you have to start somewhere, but I was hoping for a little bit more than a guy who cannot have any further political aspirations.

If this had come out of nowhere, I’d be ecstatic, but with all the buildup to the announcement, I’m left feeling more disappointment than joy.

I guess I'm more impressed because I grew up in the '70's in the South Bay Area {Sunnyvale, CA} and remember the name.