Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 04-17-2013, 05:45 AM
Location: North America
19,784 posts, read 15,121,570 times
Reputation: 8527


Originally Posted by Bily Lovec View Post
considering obama, his wife and little joe are nothing but scum, why would you want them there ?

Well, I guess you prove the old adage: Opinions are like @-holes, everyone has one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 04-17-2013, 06:18 AM
Location: Lower east side of Toronto
10,564 posts, read 12,827,353 times
Reputation: 9400
Just think - The First Lady could pat the Queen on the back as if the Queen is an old worried dog in need of Michelle's reassurance. Then the highly perturbed Queen could get her revenge by snubbing Obama one more time as he raises his glass thinking he's at a keg party. Second thought better keep them at home..

You just can't take those folks anywhere. Wait! Maybe the first Lady can sing Danny Boy as they lower the casket...She is Irish is she not? Wait! The Brits hat the Irish...oh well - who cares? When people pass away they are forgotten in two weeks any how.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-17-2013, 08:02 AM
4,684 posts, read 4,576,069 times
Reputation: 1588
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
Wrong once again. The PM is the elected and effective head of state. The royals are largely symbolic and a figurehead, figuring very little in the day to day operation and decision making of the country. Like our president, the PM is restrained by their legislative branch (parliament). While the PM is the equivalent of our President, we have no real equivalent of royalty. The entire concept of a divine birthright is something citizens of this country threw off. Though Obama does seem to forget that at times.
I acknowledge that your ignorance is impervious, but for the sake of anyone who might be otherwise misled, I feel obliged to correct your errors.

British Prime Ministers are not elected, nor are they "effective head of state" (a thing known neither in the British constitution nor in diplomatic protocol). The prime minister is appointed by the Sovereign, guided by constitutional convention. No one in the history of Great Britain has ever cast a ballot to choose a candidate for the office of prime minister - and in fact, strictly speaking, there is no such office.

Lady Thatcher, for example, from 1959 until her resignation in 1992, was repeatedly elected by the 40,000 or so electors of the parliamentary constituency of Finchley to be their representative ("member") in the House of Commons. In 1975 her fellow Conservative MPs chose her to be their leader in the Commons. Those are the only two electorates who ever elected Margaret Thatcher to anything: the 40,000 voters of Finchley and the several hundred MPs constituting the Conservative parliamentary party.

The constitutional convention is that the Sovereign confers a mandate to form the government on the leader of whichever party holds the largest number of seats in the House of Commons. In the aftermath of the general election of 1979, H.M. The Queen, guided as always by the constitution, asked (then) Mrs. Thatcher to form H.M.'s Government, and in common parlance she thereupon became "prime minister", though as usual the actual office conferred on her by H.M The Queen was First Lord of the Treasury.

Regarding the role of the Sovereign (constitutionally, there is no such thing as "royals": the Sovereign's family, except the Heir to the Throne, have no constitutional function or role whatsoever apart from the operation of the order of succession), you'll note that constitutional convention circumscribes the Sovereign's latitude in choosing the person to head H.M. Government.

But that is not the same as saying the choice is automatic, or not genuinely a choice, because this constitutional convention is secondary to the most important convention of the British constitution: that the Sovereign's first duty is to protect the constitution itself (this duty being the main burden of the Coronation Oath). In the unlikely event that a party openly dedicated to the destruction of constitutional government were to win a majority, it would be the Sovereign's clear duty to place the government in other, safer hands. Fortunately, that scenario has never occurred and is unlikely ever to, thanks to the common sense of the British people.

It is also erroneous to say that H.M. Government is "restrained by parliament". A party retains the Sovereign's mandate as long, and only while, it has the confidence of parliament, meaning in practice and at a minimum being capable of mustering a majority of votes in the House of Commons for any confidence matter, and in particular the budget bill. Therefore, by definition, H.M.G. has the support of a majority of the Commons, and in practical terms can ordinarily pass whatever legislation it wants, as long as the bill doesn't offend its own supporters and can withstand the possibility of the Lords' temporary veto.

The British constitution is unitary: all powers of the state come together in the Crown-in-Parliament, the unification of executive and legislative authority personified by the presence of H.M.'s ministers on the government (front) bench, responsible to the Sovereign who chose them and also to the people on whose representatives H.M.G. depend for their legislative majority. It was the misinformation and ignorance of the leading American rebels which led them to suppose that the Madisonian system bore any resemblance to the British constitution as it operated even then, and certainly since. There are no constitutional checks on the powers of the Crown-in-Parliament, except possibly in recent years to the extent that Crown-in-Parliament has alienated certain of its powers to supra-national jurisdictions (most particularly, as Vernon Bogdanor has pointed out, in the Human Rights Act 1998), though that ultimately remains an untested hypothesis.

Finally, it is quite clear from the above that the prime minister is not equivalent to the American president, and on the contrary the president is constitutionally equivalent to the British sovereign. The prime minister is merely the first of the Crown's ministers: the head and spokesman of the cabinet, who answers to the Sovereign in weekly audiences and to the British people's representatives in weekly "question periods" in the House of Commons.

Having been duly elected, the President of the United States, constitutionally speaking, answers to no one. The President of the United States is Head of State, and is "vested with the executive power" for the duration of his term. All the powers assigned to his office under Art. II, section 2, by duplicating those of the British Crown then and now, make it clear that the architects of the present United States constitution had their former Sovereign in mind as a model for the office, as does John Adams' suggestion in the first congress that the President be addressed as "Highness" and be symbolically present in the Senate chamber by the placement of a throne on a dais. The office of the president, in short, is an elected substitute for a monarch: a temporary stand-in for a king. Or as someone I once knew put it, "You Americans deposed King George III in 1776, and you've been electing him every four years since".

And in terms of diplomatic protocol, that is exactly how the President is treated. Representation at such formal events as state funerals is governed by the rule of parity: heads of state are represented to fellow heads of state. The late the Rt. Hon. Margaret, Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven in the County of Lincoln, LG, OM, PC was not the head of state of the United Kingdom. This wasn't the funeral of President Thatcher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-17-2013, 08:12 AM
Location: In an indoor space
7,685 posts, read 6,200,663 times
Reputation: 5154
Originally Posted by Cinebar View Post
You know, for someone whose status reads...... .......you really should practice what you preach.

Your posts about Obama are some of the most hateful on City Data - and that's saying something.
I'm calling him out on what he did wrong in my view which doesn't mean I hate him or anyone.

Please don't intermingle calling someone out like I did and hate what you said.

You're mistaken in what my posts say and meant.

I've called Bush out and other presidents in my lifetime as well, but those didn't mean "hate" either.

So if you call someone out does it mean someone should tell you that you hate? Please think about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-17-2013, 08:14 AM
Location: In an indoor space
7,685 posts, read 6,200,663 times
Reputation: 5154
Originally Posted by Cinebar View Post
You beat me to it. LOL

It's not just you.
This is a mostly a woman's reaction - I bet many like you say things to men that you don't agree with.

Shaming language in other words - I have to laugh at the attempts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-17-2013, 08:17 AM
Location: In an indoor space
7,685 posts, read 6,200,663 times
Reputation: 5154
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
Honestly, the Iron Lady would not have wanted someone from this administration there anyway.

She would be pleased....and would have something witty to say.
Yes I agree and when I call out Obama for not attending I'm cited of being hateful - go figure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-17-2013, 08:35 AM
Location: Oxford, England
13,026 posts, read 24,636,683 times
Reputation: 20165
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
The woman had and has more of an impact then you and 20 million other Brits ever will have. She helped shape this world into a better place and deserves accolades. Sorry she actually made you work for a living and not live off of freebie handouts the rest of your life.

I have never had a freebie handout in my adult life you offensive git. And have no desire for them. I came from great wealth, left it as soon as I could (17) and worked my way through paying for Yale. So don't give me all the crap about class envy and being lazy. I could have had an easy life of luxury but I chose not to so your guess is slightly off buddy. I CHOSE to join the ranks of the middle class because I wanted nothing handed out on a plate to me. Even then my earlier life gave me much more of an advantage and headstart than anyone should ever be entitled to.

I am actually entitled to claim certain social benefits and once again CHOSE not to because I don't feel I need them. My only benefit is a disabled parking placard because of my health.

Also I am not a Brit. And yes Maggie did have an impact. She destroyed all British manufacturing, public services, utilities, made our housing market the appalling damaging mess it is now, and was the harbinger of this economic crisis with her love of the "free" market and financial deregulation.

As well as being personal friend of Pinochet, and pro apartheid. Impact yes. A bloody negative one. The most destructive politician in the UK possibly ever. Even Bliar the corrupt self obsessed jerk could not match her.

Better place ?!?! On what planet ? She was a fascist's wet dream.

I don't believe in hell but if there was one she is there with her equally charming buddies like Pinochet.

I came to Britain in the 80s under her "reign". It was like something out of Dante. Mass unemployment, homelessness, house repossessions, appalling health services, poll tax riots and the worst child poverty in decades.

The woman so eulogised by her conservatives ex colleagues and current tory administraton was so "beloved" they stabbed her in the back and got rid of her because she was becoming such a political liability to the party. Her own party treated her like dirt and they are now praising the woman they brought down like hypocritical cowards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-17-2013, 08:43 AM
4,684 posts, read 4,576,069 times
Reputation: 1588
Meanwhile, on a lighter note, this is really very funny:

Who is Amanda Thatcher? | Life and style | The Guardian
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-17-2013, 08:46 AM
4,684 posts, read 4,576,069 times
Reputation: 1588
Originally Posted by Mooseketeer View Post
Even Bliar the corrupt self obsessed jerk could not match her.
But he tried. Oh, but he tried.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-17-2013, 08:59 AM
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,823,758 times
Reputation: 35920
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker View Post
I bet someone from the government attended Princess Diana's funeral.
Hillary Clinton, not a govt. employee. Link posted earlier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top