Well, I'm following the UK election even if no one else in the USA is.

[Ashesh9]

Naughty girl Annie !.

Whatever ............isn't is'nt isn't?

We Indians havin' tolerated 200 years of Brits here in India spell English better than Fair English Roses like yourself , Annie !!!

 

[UnderYourSpell]

We Indians havin' tolerated 200 years of Brits here in India spell English better than Fair English Roses like yourself , Annie !!!

Still doesn't mean that's the right place to put the apostrophe

 

[Ashesh9]

U win some , U lose some ?!?

Still doesn't mean that's the right place to put the apostrophe

OK Annie , you win the battle of the apostrophe but check the Oxford Univ. dictionary meaning of " hoard" !?!

 

[oggbashan]

OK Annie , you win the battle of the apostrophe but check the Oxford Univ. dictionary meaning of " hoard" !?!

"Word hoard" is a dictionary.

 

[Ashesh9]

Wicked repartee ........

"Word hoard" is a dictionary.

Touche , Annie !!!!

 

[Halen]

Living in the United States, the United Kingdom across the sea has no barring on the lives of the citizens. makes no difference which gap toothed odd speaking brit is in charge. lol, Kind of like The United States Election is going on and I say WHO CARES! so is our elections in Canada. No time to give a crap about the Hair Piece, to busy making sure the idiot son of the guy who attempted to ruin the country don't get in!. Liberals Win here may as well start negotiations for approval as the 52nd state! or accept Islamic Canada!

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Living in the United States, the United Kingdom across the sea has no barring on the lives of the citizens. makes no difference which gap toothed odd speaking brit is in charge.

Until they need another war, that is. Our presidents don't know how to say "no".

 

[oggbashan]

Until they need another war, that is. Our presidents don't know how to say "no".

Or the US needs support for one of their wars. Our Prime Ministers don't seem to be able to say "no" even though our military capacity is equivalent to one US state's National Guard.

 

[Halen]

Until they need another war, that is. Our presidents don't know how to say "no".

Well America has been a Warmonger for many years. Lets see they Attacked Iraq for oil issues, When the Japanese did this exact same thing to Pearl Harbour it was a mass out cry and war crimes etc etc Hussein was never found to be in violation of the UN in fact that meant the US Illegally Invaded his country! rightful for past crimes or not at the time there entire world was WMDs which were never found!.. Or we could look here at Canada the reason WW1 was ended so quickly or WW2 the reason it ended at all As it Was Canadian Soldiers who walked in and took Normandy in 24 hrs after weeks of Allied Us Uk fighting... =/ Ours don't know how to say no either but then they send untrained unprepared troops to busy tossing all the cash on Immigration!

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Or the US needs support for one of their wars. Our Prime Ministers don't seem to be able to say "no" even though our military capacity is equivalent to one US state's National Guard.

Without a doubt, the Bush/Obama years on this side of the pond, and the Blair/Cameron years on your side, have both been wretched. There's no point in trying to decide which of these was the worst.

As far as the genesis of all the wars is concerned, I would point to the speech that Blair made in Chicago in 1999, which initiated the "regime change" policy that has been used as the pretext for so many wars. Yes, the US has the big military, but a lot of the planning seems to be done in the UK. Prior to the destruction of Iraq, Blair's office had issued the famous "dodgy dossier" in 2003, a watershed event in the drive for war. But I think that the "regime change" or "R2P" theory is the main thing to consider here, because it made chronic violations of international law socially acceptable.

 

[UnderYourSpell]

OK Annie , you win the battle of the apostrophe but check the Oxford Univ. dictionary meaning of " hoard" !?!

I realised I'd inadvertently used the wrong spelling when I first answered you, but I felt you were just being picky, so you got a response in kind.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

A timely cartoon by Steve Bell.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Another hopeful sign that the UK is becoming more civilized:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...re-the-Queen-when-he-joins-Privy-Council.html

 

[oggbashan]

Another hopeful sign that the UK is becoming more civilized:

...

Not more civilised. Just lacking in respect for traditions, and for our Head of State.

Her Majesty will not complain or even indicate that he's doing it wrong. She is too polite to notice.

The only people who will be offended are many traditional Labour supporters who have considerable respect for Her Majesty, whether or not they think we should be a republic.

The media are making an issue over nothing - as usual.

 

[Messier82]

Agreed. Just because Labour have a 'republican' party leader, and now others are following his lead, does not mean that the party members will necessarily be inclined in the same direction. Our monarchy and the respect we give them (however insincere it may or may not be) is simply a tradition, and we have lots of them.

Another tradition that Mr Corbyn seems to be trying to eliminate is the one of making political leaders the butt of our topical humour shows. Check out Radio 4's comedy News Quiz 8th January

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Not more civilised. Just lacking in respect for traditions, and for our Head of State.

Kneeling before a monarch is not a sign of respect. It is a sign of servitude. And giving obeisance to a person, based on that person's supposedly thoroughbred bloodlines, is not far from eugenics.

 

[oggbashan]

Kneeling before a monarch is not a sign of respect. It is a sign of servitude. And giving obeisance to a person, based on that person's supposedly thoroughbred bloodlines, is not far from eugenics.

It is part of our traditions and Her Majesty deserves respect, if only for a lifetime of service to her people.

Thoroughbred bloodlines? That isn't borne out by English/British history.

US politics seem to have more bloodlines than UK monarchy.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Remind me: what were the criteria for Liz's selection to be queen?

 

[oggbashan]

Remind me: what were the criteria for Liz's selection to be queen?

She wouldn't have been if her father's elder brother hadn't abdicated to marry an American divorcée.

The succession to the throne is decided by Parliament in the name of the people of the UK. There are legal restrictions decided by Acts of Parliament on who can, or cannot, be the Monarch.

Ultimately the people, through their elected representatives, decide the succession. If George VI hadn't been such a good King, popular with the country, it is possible that we might be a republic now.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

She wouldn't have been if her father's elder brother hadn't abdicated to marry an American divorcée.

That's not the real reason he was forced to abdicate.

 

[butters]

Kneeling before a monarch is not a sign of respect. It is a sign of servitude. .

this reflects my personal opinion.
if others feel the act is a sign of their respect, then i don't feel they shouldn't bend their knee. it would just feel wrong for me as i see the woman as my equal as a person; i fully respect that she has had a difficult job pushed upon her and it's one she's had to do for so many years. she hasn't the same freedoms as most of us. i would happily dip my head or shake her hand, in respect (even if i wouldn't agree with all her actions), but feel no need to courtsey or kneel.

It is part of our traditions and Her Majesty deserves respect, if only for a lifetime of service to her people.

traditions change

just as well in some instances.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

Amusing.

 

[oggbashan]

Amusing.

Would be amusing if it was true, but Prince Philip was more likely to have objected to Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair.

 

[UnderYourSpell]

I swore allegiance to the Queen, her heirs and successors when I joined the Forces and nobody as yet has rescinded that oath.

 

[Messier82]

Truth is, most Brits aren't particularly bothered about the monarchy one way or another: we've got them, we've nearly always had them, when we didn't have them life was arguably quite a bit worse. Their weddings/birthdays etc are really just an excuse "for a bit of a do" (for you US guys that translates as some kind of party).

It's highly unlikely most UK folk would be bothered about becoming a republic. Point in question - when Scotland very nearly got their independence recently, did they want to abandon the monarchy? No.

From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29126569

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond is keen to stress these associations, pointing out that the union of the crowns predates the union of the parliaments which he wishes to end.

His government has always maintained that the Queen would still be "Queen of Scots" if the country votes "Yes" on 18 September.

Earlier this week, he said the Queen "would be proud" to be the monarch of an independent Scotland.

As for objections to obsequiousness based on tradition, what about our legal system and how to address Magistrates and Judges?
Would you try to 'buck the system' here? Not if you're smart!