Iowa FTW

[Adam]

Incidentally, I see the government of Great Britain as scary. You pay money to support an unelected head of state and a state church; there's no Constitution and Parliament just does whatever it wants; you have few guarantees of freedoms as Americans would define them; the government interferes with every aspect of your lives; the theoretical basis for the authority of the government doesn't derive from the power of the people; and you seem to trust the government.

Monarchy = totally agree with you. Would abolish if I could.

State church = again, completely agree that this is bullshit. in all fairness though, despite the fact that we are TECHNICALLY more religious than the US, in reality we are much more secular.

Constitution = not 100 sure. Part of me would like a proper constitution like the US, but it's not something I feel strongly about. we have an uncodified constitution. places like the US really needed a proper written constitution becuase of the way your country came about. the UK is much more different. our laws have evolved over hundreds of years and are actually relatively stable. I don't think it's necessary for us really. the US is very different

Parliament just does whatever it wants = not really sure what you mean there so can't comment

Few guarantees of freedoms = again, I think this is similar to the constitution thing. It's not set in stone in the same way that it is in the US. I don't know whether it's much of a problem though tbh. The freedoms that are at risk here are at risk in the US too. (internet laws etc)

Govt interferes in every aspect of our lives = I would disagree with this. I support big govt though and this seems to be something that Americans are generally DEAD SET AGAINST. I in no way support govt interfering in every aspect of people's lives, but I support big govt. Which is what I think we're talking about here?

The British people definitely do not trust the government btw. I think Americans tend to think of us as trusting the govt because we aren't so strongly against it in the way that you are. The British people definitely do not trust the govt though.

[TheoK]

 

You can't have a big government that doesn't intrude.

[RageBeoulve]

You can't have a big government that doesn't intrude.

Exactly. I mean what else are they going to do with such a large staff and billions upon billions of dollars of funding? They're going to busybody around.

Constitution = not 100 sure. Part of me would like a proper constitution like the US, but it's not something I feel strongly about. we have an uncodified constitution. places like the US really needed a proper written constitution becuase of the way your country came about. the UK is much more different. our laws have evolved over hundreds of years and are actually relatively stable. I don't think it's necessary for us really. the US is very different

Well, it would be the greatest thing ever actually. One problem: It can be manipulated against the people's will somehow. I don't fully understand how this keeps happening, but now we need to apply for a permit just to complain about it! Yeah, if you want to engage in peaceful protest anywhere near a government building, you need a "free speech permit"! Home of the free my ass, right?

Monarchy = totally agree with you. Would abolish if I could.

Thirded. Monarchy is ridiculous.

State church = again, completely agree that this is bullshit. in all fairness though, despite the fact that we are TECHNICALLY more religious than the US, in reality we are much more secular.

To be totally honest I hate the church. I personally feel it to be degenerate in every aspect, but I know that freedom of spirituality is important and that I share the world with billions of other minds. So I try to be quiet about it.

Parliament just does whatever it wants = not really sure what you mean there so can't comment

*nods*

Few guarantees of freedoms = again, I think this is similar to the constitution thing. It's not set in stone in the same way that it is in the US. I don't know whether it's much of a problem though tbh. The freedoms that are at risk here are at risk in the US too. (internet laws etc)

Both agree and disagree. I'll split it up.

It's not set in stone in the same way that it is in the US.

Oh man, you're way off here dude. Our last couple of presidents have been repeatedly wiping their asses with our constitution and modifying what they can't throw out to garauntee less civil rights. Its been going on for some time now.

The freedoms that are at risk here are at risk in the US too. (internet laws etc)

Totally agree with this one, and its a very serious problem. With the multibillion dollar global spying and internet decryption programs in full swing, this could be the most prominent threat to democracy, EVER. A global stranglehold, really.

I think Americans tend to think of us as trusting the govt because we aren't so strongly against it in the way that you are.

And this may be why we misunderstand each other so often. Why aren't you openly denouncing attacks on civil rights and pointless wars? Is this just some kind of a british thing?

[Adam]

I don't understand the last point ^

House of Commons just voted against war in Syria BECAUSE of public opinion. People were definitely speaking up against it

And before Iraq there were BIG anti-war protests. Didn't stop them that time, of course, but people definitely spoke up



and Lit, I said the govt doesn't intrude in EVERYTHING. Of course more is regulated officially with big govt.

[Semicolon]

Incidentally, I see the government of Great Britain as scary. You pay money to support an unelected head of state and a state church; there's no Constitution and Parliament just does whatever it wants; you have few guarantees of freedoms as Americans would define them; the government interferes with every aspect of your lives; the theoretical basis for the authority of the government doesn't derive from the power of the people; and you seem to trust the government.

Monarchy = totally agree with you. Would abolish if I could.

State church = again, completely agree that this is bullshit. in all fairness though, despite the fact that we are TECHNICALLY more religious than the US, in reality we are much more secular.

Constitution = not 100 sure. Part of me would like a proper constitution like the US, but it's not something I feel strongly about. we have an uncodified constitution. places like the US really needed a proper written constitution becuase of the way your country came about. the UK is much more different. our laws have evolved over hundreds of years and are actually relatively stable. I don't think it's necessary for us really. the US is very different

Parliament just does whatever it wants = not really sure what you mean there so can't comment

Few guarantees of freedoms = again, I think this is similar to the constitution thing. It's not set in stone in the same way that it is in the US. I don't know whether it's much of a problem though tbh. The freedoms that are at risk here are at risk in the US too. (internet laws etc)

Govt interferes in every aspect of our lives = I would disagree with this. I support big govt though and this seems to be something that Americans are generally DEAD SET AGAINST. I in no way support govt interfering in every aspect of people's lives, but I support big govt. Which is what I think we're talking about here?

The British people definitely do not trust the government btw. I think Americans tend to think of us as trusting the govt because we aren't so strongly against it in the way that you are. The British people definitely do not trust the govt though.

You have parliamentary supremacy, correct? In the UK, Parliament can make any law it wants to. In the US, Congress can't legally enact certain laws. For example, Congress can't pass a law that declares someone guilty of a particular crime.

One of the biggest differences is the basis for the legitimacy of the government. In the UK, power is theoretically drawn from the monarch. In the US, the government's power is willingly surrendered by the general populace in order to promote the common good. We fought, as one nation, for our independence. I don't like big government because, under the American system, the people don't surrender any more power than the government needs to perform its basic functions. We have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to enforce this.

I don't understand what would happen if your government started passing laws that a vast majority of Brits didn't like. What could you do about it? The Constitution is a way for the government to check its own power, and for the people to check the government.

[RageBeoulve]

I don't understand the last point ^

House of Commons just voted against war in Syria BECAUSE of public opinion. People were definitely speaking up against it

And before Iraq there were BIG anti-war protests. Didn't stop them that time, of course, but people definitely spoke up



and Lit, I said the govt doesn't intrude in EVERYTHING. Of course more is regulated officially with big govt.

In simpler terms, how can you folks not be boiling over with anger at this point? As far as I know you're getting fucked pretty hard over there too.

[RageBeoulve]

Also, here goes piers again, shooting his mouth off with false statements. Does anyone in England like him even?



I got curious about this of course, since the guy for some reason seemed to have no motive at all. After some digging, I still don't know shit about him. I'm left with even more questions about this.

Why did he kill a dozen people?

How did he get onto a military post with a large shotgun and thirty shells?

What about that guy they said may have been helping him? That just kind of disappeared didn't it?

What the fuck was with the order to stand down?

What is his background? What kind of a guy was he? Did he have a father and mother? History of mental illness?

WHY AND HOW? I WANT TO KNOW AND THE PISS STREAM MEDIA IS NOT PROVIDING ANSWERS LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO!

[odeon]

But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.

I didn't know there was a war going on in the US.

There wasn't a war going on in the Soviet Union most of the time Stalin were murdering 10-15% of the population or so either. And Jews were taken to camps in Germany already in 1933 although not extermination camps. You can't give any guarantees what the future will look like.

Yes. The pre-war Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are relevant in this context. I stand corrected.

[odeon]

There's a big difference between hospitals and guns. Can you tell the class what that difference is?

Your dancing skills leave a lot to be desired.

Apparently around 184000 dead people a year. 

Clever but irrelevant. Again, if you want to discuss health care, we can. Just start a thread.

And you took the bait.

Those numbers (from Japan and the US) are directly comparable with each other. That's the point.

You're still not answering my questions. I'm doing my best to play ball with you, man.

You're not addressing my points.

You have to do better, simple as that.

There's a big problem there, that we agree on, but it's not related to the language.

Yeah, its mostly just people like you who think pretending things aren't there is the best solution.

I realise the numbers are problematic for your arguments.

One would think that it would be a simple question to answer. It's called a hypothetical, Rage. Did you notice my parenthetical comment, in there?

I don't entertain childish fantasy.

Then why are you posting?

I didn't see any, sorry.

I'm being serious for the most part, buddy. You're the one joking around.

If the thread warrants a serious post, I'll write one. I'm not holding my breath, though.

One would think you had more important matters on your mind than guns, then.

Where did I suggest that you need the NHS, btw?

You brought up healthcare more than once. You seem to think it a good idea to inflict UK laws and routines on my country, so its only logical your healthcare suggestions would follow that pattern.

Please provide a single quote form this thread where I suggest you should adopt UK laws and routines.

But failing miserably. I'm only doing this for entertainment. Can't argue serious topics with the religious.

I am -not- failing. I am trying to debate with someone who is completely unwilling to cooperate. I think i'm doing a fine job, considering.

You provide adequate target practice but that's about it. Sorry.

There's an echo here. Could have sworn that I already addressed your reply to this.

No you didn't.

You didn't like the answer. Big difference.

So? I spot an unusually moronic topic on the web. The topic happens to be about Iowa's gun laws.

You're full of shit, sir. This little particular quote exchange started because you were whining about Lit "always" having to pop in and make things about America. It was about America anyway. I pointed that out, that the thread was originally about legislations in Iowa, and Lit and I were discussing the second amendment.

You might want to reread the thread. I can't be bothered to quote the relevant posts here but it shouldn't be difficult. Tedious but not difficult.

Sorry. Didn't realise you had one.

Well don't strain yourself there, chuckles.

Trust me, I'm not.

You are the one saying that your constitution is sacred, not me. Plenty of legislation I don't take lightly, but it doesn't mean I consider them sacred or above a debate.

You sure take another country's legislations lightly. Especially the ones that protect the only rights they have left.
(Which is I might add, the closest thing to something sacred that could exist for the American people. Nice work continually making fun of it, you fucking asshole. Watching other nations crumble is better than TV, huh?)

I am not making fun of your legislation. I am pointing out problems with it. No legislation should be so *sacred* that it cannot be discussed and debated.

The US constitution is a touchy subject for you. I can't help noticing that it is when criticising it that you get mad and start with the name calling. Like here.

I think it's safe to say that it is sacred to a lot of people in the US. It is a weakness you have, IMO, because it can effectively keep you from evolving.

But I don't want to see the US crumble. It is a nation with problems but it is also a great nation, one that contributes so much more to the world than the nonsense that is usually on the news. Please don't think I dislike your country or your people just because I criticise your constitution.

And what if they are, and can't get help?

If they are honestly trying to get help, here in my country and they somehow can't, then something is VERY WRONG. We're already about a step away from a welfare state.

Actually something IS very wrong and it has nothing to do with you being a welfare state.

[odeon]

Also, here goes piers again, shooting his mouth off with false statements. Does anyone in England like him even?

Jeremy Clarkson doesn't.

[odeon]

The Constitution is a way for the government to check its own power, and for the people to check the government.

And how do you think it's working?

[TheoK]

But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.

I didn't know there was a war going on in the US.

There wasn't a war going on in the Soviet Union most of the time Stalin were murdering 10-15% of the population or so either. And Jews were taken to camps in Germany already in 1933 although not extermination camps. You can't give any guarantees what the future will look like.

Yes. The pre-war Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are relevant in this context. I stand corrected.

Guantanamo is real. The NSA shit is real. "War against terror" is real. You have no idea how this might escalate in 10-20 years.

In 1985, could you have foreseen what the world would look like today?

[TheoK]

The Constitution is a way for the government to check its own power, and for the people to check the government.

And how do you think it's working?

Will it work better if they can't defend themselves?

[Semicolon]

The Constitution is a way for the government to check its own power, and for the people to check the government.

And how do you think it's working?

Our system is not working well at the moment, but that's because the Constitution is being ignored and no one is willing to call the President or Congress on it. If anything, we need a stronger Constitution.

You seem to think that the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms. It doesn't; we already have that right. The Constitution just enforces it.

[TheoK]

He doesn't understand the concept of natural rights. Most Europeans are still stuck in the thinking when kings and emperors ruled and rights were something that the state gave you.