TheScout

Yeah those places are definently not real America.

I don't think I would ever misspeak about not being proud of America. I don't think John McCain would either.

But I reckon most people don't use the construction "real America" often or at all. Better perhaps to use your heart to tell what Gov. Palin meant by the phrase.

I think you know in your heart what it means.

I know what she meant. I have used the "real America" phrase before and know others that hvae too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7678796.stm

Except Sean Connery is a supporter of the Scottish National Party and an independent Scotland.

One must love how scientists try to tell us simple folk that race does not exist all of a sudden. (This message has been edited by TheScout)

I love how people try to explain away the concept of race, which has existed through all the ages.

The Republicans elected after 1964 better represented the views of the South. That is why they won, thats democracy. If people want to vote based on race, segregation policy, etc., isn't that their right?

Don't throw it at somebody?

Banking is a business too and banks need to make money.

They could join the military and go to college for free.

There seems to be so much worrying. I have faith in the magic of capitalism. It has got us out of every mess before and brought our nation to the great wealth we have today. Let it run its course.

Bad banks with not enough reserves should fail. It should serve as a lesson to other banks to make better business.

I was an Ecology Director for two years while I was in college. I think a diligent director can do a good job in making sure instructors are proficient in what they must teach. I made each instructor turn in a outline of what they would cover each day for each of their merit badge classes. I would also make them go over the requirements with me during staff week. During the summer I would take every available opportunity to observe the classes they taught to ensure quality. One instructor I even had removed to teach at the Craft Lodge because he was not capable of teaching Ecology

Or Monaco, Belgium, Andorra, Liechenstein, Luxemburg, and Belgium. But thats not the point, especially for the British people who have always prided themselves on their liberties.

The monarch could be of a different faith and still protect the Protestant Reformed Church. There have been Catholic kings before. Charles II and James II come to mind. A all but Catholic Tony Blair appointed COE officials for the Queen just recently. That is not the worse part. Even more eggregous is the fact that those in the royal succession lose their place if they even marry a Catholic. I don't know how anyone could support such restrictions. The UK has sadly degenerated into an almost mob rule It used to have a perfect mixed government with a monarchial, aristocratic, and pop

"Perhaps someone should "try" to explain that to the current Executive team! Not that they actually understand or care." I don't know what that means.

Congress makes policy. The President only executes it.

I never said the Queen can suspend acts of Parliament. That hasn't been done since the Stuarts. But she can appoint ministers and tell them of her intention that they should introduce legislation to change acts of bigotry such as the Act of Settlement. It was you who said the Queen should use her powers to protect the democracy from the government. Is not repealing a measure against her Catholic subjects such a use of that? When I asked, when did the monarch lose the right to withold assent, I was wondering when it happened. We know it happened in 1707, what act stopped that right?

"The Queens powers are there to stop the government from abusing theirs, e.g. In the UK the maximum time between elections is 5yrs, if the government tried to ignore this limit the Queen would disolve Parliament and force an election. Alternatively, if the government tried to call an election 18mths after the last one, just because the poll numbers were excellent, the Queen can refuse their request to disolve Parliament. The Queen on the other hand can't adopt absolute power because she can't raise money without Parliament. Also, she must give assent to any bill that is presented to her

Well Edward did hold up Asquith's budget, if one can slow something, can't one also stop it? I don't know what major constitutional effect amending the Act of Settlement would have. It has been amended before. It would simply change the royal succession laws. I do not insist the the US is the only democracy. I would insist on proper labeling of types of governments. I would call the US a federal republic, and the UK is definatly some form of constitutional monarchy. So what is your view of the Queen's power? Is she just a mere puppet acted on every whim of her ministers? If so, why even k

Well I wouldn't consider the UK a democarcy. At the very least a democratic constitutional MONARCHY. The Queen has her reserve powers for a reason and should be an important protector of the people. Think of Edward VII in 1910 when Asquith tried to ram through the "People's Budget" and flood the House of Lords with new peerages. Edward refused Asquith's request was dangerous to the constitution. Or flip to the early 1990s when in a similar system Baudouin of Belgium refused assent to a law limiting restrictions on abortions as against the morals of the country. The Queen is a g

True, but it is the Queen's perogative to appoint ministers to introduce laws to her liking. But that is a fantasy world where the Queen would actually care about the government of her kingdom.