JamesHackerMP

I wasn't aware Canada had a fixed term parliament like the UK now does. When did you start doing that?

They called it the "Arab Spring"--a pretty stupid name imho, by the way--but it morphed into a winter of discontent. What did it really achieve? It started in Tunis in January 2011, where long-time president Ben Ali got out of dodge after spontaneous and violent protests. Ditto Hosni Mubarak by the end of the next month; the biggest snowball possible in such hot weather. The by-product is that civil wars still rage in Yemen and Syria; and Egypt is once again under the mandate of a "president" who will likely remain so for years, just like Mubarak. One wonders, why some countries experience a merry-go-round of dictatorship-almost democracy-dictatorship, whereas other countries can actually transition from dictatorship to quasi-democracy to democracy. (Though not very often.)

I agree. Totally. I wonder when Season 3 starts. It's supposed to star different actors, since the Queen is older at that point.

This is a great thread so far, but I hope we can keep it from degenerating into a Trump v. Hillary or "f*** the USA" kind of thread.

Oh, I think I found it. But I could have sworn it was his campaign song for his first election bid in the late 90s. Well, my memory might have failed me. Anyway here is a story about it: http://www.pbs.org/soundtracks/stories/putin/ Actually follow this other link it's hilarious, it has subtitles in English, too. Gotta wait about 20 or so seconds in before the actual singing starts, tho. http://russianhistoryblog.org/2011/02/youtube-of-the-week-a-man-like-putin-with-english-subtitles/

About Putin being a real man....can someone find a link to a NYT (or maybe it was WaPo) I read at the time of Putin's election, concerning his "election song". He had one and it was hilarious. The girl in the song is lamenting that her boyfriend beats her and is a deadbeat; the refrain was something like "Why can't I find a real man, a man like Putin?" I about shat myself laughing when I read about that. But it's illustrative of his clever manipulation of the population.

I cannot read the second link, it's in Turkish.

For once, I'll take up for Altai. It's not her native language, Rue. In fact, it's the 2nd hardest foreign language to learn (English I mean). If we make fun of someone's English skills, instead of making an actual counter argument, then we become the a********s. That said however, Altai, you do have rather a fixation with America, to put it politely. Why do you hate us so much?

About the notwithstanding clause: I wonder how long it will be, or what it will take, for that to blow up in canada's face?

I'm not sure. I know my uncle, when he appeared before the draft board after his number was picked; all he he to say was that his brother was already in Vietnam (my father) and he was excused. Funny then that Sweden just re-introduced the draft, didn't they?

What you're talking about is sovereignty of nation-states essentially? Nationalism is a political philosophy of the formation of nation-states encompassing areas with common language/cultures. Like the "liberal nationalism" of the 19th century in europe.

Interesting. Explain the notwithstanding clause to me.

You didn't answer my question. Instead you've gone on about how much American ass your country is going to kick and some hateful stuff about us being liars.

figured there'd be more interest in this from Canadians. It seems to be "common knowledge" up north that their form of government is inherently superior.

Most people assume that the founding fathers of the United States designed the constitution in a way to create three, co-equal branches of government, capable of checking each other. This isn't quite true. The 3 branches/checks and balances theory is a more modern theory. The government may look the same on paper as it did in 1789, but every government evolves over time. In fact, the checks and balances were supposed to come from WITHIN the legislative sphere, the differences between the Senate and House of Representatives ensured that they could check each other. The senate came from the state legislatures, the House from the People. The presidency, on the other hand, was created for the need of an executive officer with the authority to enforce acts of Congress. The old constitution had no such officer, and the states were expected to carry out its will (and they frequently refused). Most states at the time had nominal executive branches, for the most part. Naturally, the idea of a president met with resistance. Of course, parliamentary democracy didn't exist in the 1780s. We were more rebelling against foreign control and remotely-influenced repression of our liberties, than against any particular form of government; though the Declaration certainly stirred passions against the idea of a monarchy. It's just interesting that in the last century, very few presidential democracies have been established, was my point. I'm surprised Iraq didn't end up presidential, or at least (more likely) as semi-presidential republic, like France.

I've often discussed the difference between the two main types of democracies, presidential and parliamentary (there's actually a third, but it is used very rarely, in countries like France for example). In the last century we have seen a lot of new democratic governments founded: Australia, Germany (twice), Japan, former communist countries...and even places like Iraq. Yet, none of these have adopted the American model of democratic governance (presidential). It made sense for Japan to have a parliamentary government, and for Australia's founding fathers to adopt it as well. We wanted Emperor Showa (Hirohito) to have no power, but remain a symbolic head of state, and the only way to do that is to use the Westminster model, or some adaptation thereof. But when we advised the eastern European countries toward democracy we seemed to have encouraged parliamentary governments. When Iraq's constitution was designed we didn't impose a presidential model on them; but a modified Westminster model with proportional representation, to boot. Other countries have adopted various aspects of the American constitution where they thought it would be useful, but have stopped short of having an actual presidential model. Why is this exactly? Why haven't more countries, especially those which were influenced by American advisers, used a presidential model, or at least some modification thereof?

I used to be a Republican, then went to being a RINO, then an independent (unaffiliated) voter.

It's actually difficult in the courts to prove "libel" or "slander". You have to prove malicious intent. This sounds unfair, but it is done for a reason, the reason being that, otherwise, the government would be able to label something as libelous that it isn't comfortable with the people hearing (e.g., the truth).

oh that one's not bad. I don't think mine was a complete list above. So I think I neglected that one. It was a pretty neat episode.

So, are the Unitarians like the Arians of old (not the Nazi Arians, the people in the 4th century and after who disagreed with the Trinitarian concept accepted by the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon)?

I don't bother to watch most of the original Star Trek. It's not as good as its successor spin-offs, imho. But there are a few episodes that are my favorites, that I will actually watch. It was a decent program, and probably thought-provoking at the time. in no particular order, 14 of my favorites; many of them aren't as watchable as these: The Naked Time (s1e5) Mudd's Women (s1e7) Harry Mudd and his subspace-order brides Balance of Terror (s1e15) basically a remake of some old movie about a US sub duking it out with its Japanese counterpart, I forget the name....Enemy Below? Shore Leave (s1e16) Space Seed (s1e23) in which we are introduced to Khan Noonian Singh (KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANH!) A Taste of Armageddon (s1e24) The planet that fights its war by computers, counts up the casualties (and importantly, WHO were the casualties, so they can report to suicide stations) Amok Time (s2e1) AKA "Spock gets horny" The Doomsday Machine (s2e6) Journey to Babel (s2e10) Say, wasn't Mark Leonard also the Romulan in Balance of Terror? can you say "recycling"? The Trouble with Tribbles (s2e15) love this one, little furry bastards multiply like rabbits (or gremlins) and take over the Enterprise A Piece of the Action (s2e17) A planet modeled after 1920's Chicago complete with mob bosses Patterns of Force (s2e21) some idiot historian decides to try Fascism to unify a chaotic planet (whoops) Assignment Earth (s2e26) for some idiot reason, the Enterprise goes back in time to do historical research and ends up messing with nuclear warheads. Wow, what a great idea. The Enterprise Incident (s3e2) this is the most watchable episode of the ones I have seen of season 3. Thoughts?

Are you saying the Trinity was invented? I mean, like it wasn't believed in earliest Christianity?

No need to troll, now...

The key phrase is "as seen from the perspective of Europe". Nothing against Europe, but as human beings, they have the same tendency to judge others according to their own values and norms. European values and norms don't apply to the US system. Not saying I totally disagree with what you're saying, but your approach might be wanting for a more objective approach perhaps?

Lewis Black did a comedy routine in which he commented on the OT (or to Jews, the Tanakh, call it what you will). He stated how he always sees on TV Christian preachers interpreting the OT. And their interpretations, he alleges, are typically wrong. "It's not their fault...because it's not their book!" I think this clip includes that, not sure, but it's most of his routine on the OT from "Red, White and Screwed". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlWb6HZwrU8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ_zHwU3R20 God was kind of a dick in the OT. It's best left to Jews to explain why, IMHO. Why worry about God's behavior in the OT? The Torah/Tanakh/etc were written long after the events supposedly took place. Perhaps the destruction of Midian, for example, was a tradition that started later, to justify its destruction? "Oh yeah, God told us to do that." As a Christian (not very devout, I do not go to church these days but I do believe there is a God of some sort, however fuzzily the Bible may describe him, but I'm sure the nuns would have smacked my knuckles with a yard stick if I had spouted it all out in first grade catholic school) I do believe that the OT is less important to us. I hear the term "old testmanent Christianity" before, and I just rolled my eyes. The OT is for the Jewish faith primarily, as Lewis Black asserts. Not irrelevant, but simply less urgent for one to read it if one is a Christian, IMHO.