JamesHackerMP

The problem, oftenwrong, is that it may often seem that way to some politicians. I can't compromise because my opponents are so nuts is an overused excuse. It always looks that way because politics is war. You have to try, anyway!

Right. If I remember correctly, there are four regions of Canada: the West, the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario. All have to get an equal number of senators, right? In my state it is a waste. But not so at the federal level where it's necessary to retain the federal nature of the American union. To maintain that federal nature, it's also necessary the Senate is more powerful than a lot of other upper houses around the world. Peter: so basically the nobles created the lower house to kick the commoners out of parliament, keep them sidelined and less powerful?

Well, if you said it wasn't equitable to do that in the states (same 2 senators per state) how would it be equitable in Canada?

How so, Boges?

Seems I'm still under her embargo. Not that anybody really minds.

OK, I understand. BUt that does not entirely answer my question. Why was the division of the great council into two parliamentary bodies made in the first place? It started out as a unicameral Great Council.

Something about the US state legislatures. Because of several supreme court decisions, as well as the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it's effectively illegal for a state legislature to have one body based on population, and the other not. Of course, the NE house of Reps. was abolished long before that (1934) but with NE's population pretty evenly spread out, it likely didn't make any difference. It had nothing to do with the party situation. I doubt it was the same in 1934 as it is today.

actually, what was the original purpose of a bicameral English Parliament? Why was it divided into one body of nobility &clergy and another, of community leaders?

Gee I hope I'm not stil under your intellectual embargo. I guess I'll find out. Why would Turkey fire its missiles on European capitals? That'd be like the United States nuking Canada.

Possibly.

No of course not. But it's interesting how the exact spheres of influence were taken over by the US as the UK's imperial power declined. Although, the British were protecting the "Indian Empire" by keeping the Russians out of Afghanistan; the United States was protecting its Pakistani ally, rather than the non-aligned Indian republic (though "Pakistan" and Bangladesh were originally part of that Indian Empire, so you get my drift.) There was also the US support of regimes in Indonesia and Malyasia--formerly Malaya and British Borneo in that area. Let's not forget our support of the Shah of Iran. In the early 20th century a treaty between the Tsar and the UK divvied up Iran/Persia into a Russian zone, a neutral zone and a British zone. Our support of the gulf states (Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain) was taking over Britain's securing of its "lifeline" between India and the Suez Canal. To an extent you're right: it's part of a very old game. But nonetheless, we took over Britain's containment in all but name, to an even greater extent. Orwell predicted in "1984": "with the absorption of Europe by Russia, and the British Empire by the United States, two of the superstates, Eurasia and Oceania, had already come in to being." (I'm trying to remember that quote from years ago, so it may not be precise, but I did read 1984 four times.) A dystopian novel like that uses exaggeration: he didn't mean that the US would literally invade British territories and add them to its own empire; but would "absorb" the British Empire's [former] spheres of influence. Russia has always wanted a weak China rather than a strong one. One of the causes of tension between the Chinese commies and the Russian commies was Stalin's initial support of Chiang Kai-Shek. He didn't so much care about world Socialism as he did about Russian national security. Play the Chinese warlords off against each other and keep China weak, which is also part of Russia's "warm water port" strategy. If the Russians and the Chinese ever patched up their differences, it would likely lead to World War III. It's in our interests to keep the two antagonistic toward each other.

Sounds like we're back in October 1962. The NATO play book always advised the use of smaller powered nuclear weapons (i.e. tactical nukes) in the event Soviet forces overwhelmed NATO forces in an invasion of western Europe. Since the Berlin garrison would be overwhelmed in a matter of minutes, it amounted to a first response, more or less. There was no way NATO could hold back the mass of T-54 tanks without literally nuking them. What pacifist types do not understand is that a show of weakness guarantees war, not prevents it.

Or so he wanted. But it is interesting that the United States not only picked up the pieces of the British Empire's spheres of influence, we also took over some of their foreign policy, whatevre FDR may have said to the contrary. For example, it was British foreign policy (until they did their famous 180 spin at the beginning of WWI) to prop up the Sultan in Constantinople to keep the Russian navy out of the Mediterranean. NATO included Turkey. Also British policy for years to keep the Russians out of Afghanistan. In 1979 the USSR invades and the US tries to boot the Soviets out. There are some differences of course but the general idea is the same.

Another good moment was when Agent Holley was explaining to Archer and Lana that the whole cocaine-for-arms thing was really about their annual budget: the CIA was only doing it because if they didn't use up their budget this year they couldn't get a raise next year. Yeah I was wondering why that whole Bob's Burgers thing was in that episode; until I found out that H. Jon Benjamin does Bob's Burgers as well as Archer. Too funny. "Wait, doesn't Italy use a king?" There was one where Wodehouse was reading a telegram from Mallory to Archer when he was a boy. "Ajax a success, Tehran is ours. Love Mommy & Uncle Kermit" (Assuming they mean Kermit Roosevelt, who planned Operation Ajax, the removal of PM Mossadeq of Iran.) What I don't get is the anachronisms but they do make the show neat somehow. Like, there's still a Soviet Union and a chairman of the KGB (with whom Mallory's having a phone-sex affair) yet they blow up an oil pipeline for the President of Turkmenistan, and Leningrad is called St. Petersburg. The cars look all 1970s but they are texting on smart phones. The computers look all 1980s-ish (even tape reels) and yet they have the internet.

I put this thread under this topic because it seemed more 'theoretical" than directly applicable to current events. In another thread, some of you were talking about the Canadian Senate. I'm not trying to advise Canadians what to do about their own government here, God knows that would be a faux pas as they say in Quebec, but it got me thinking. When and where, exactly, is an upper house necessary and even productive? In what situations is it better to not have one? One of our states (Nebraska) got rid of its lower house, deciding that a unicameral legislature would be more democratic. New Zealand abolished its upper house, but Australia didn't. (The Australian senate has quite a bit of power). In the UK, the Lords is actually useful as an upper house according to the Britons I have talked to. Even though it's appointed as is your Senate, its composition is a bit different and allows it to give some apolitical scrutiny to certain matters.

buddies? You mean Kreuger? (however you spell that) He's funny too. There was one where Figgis was talking about Kreuger being an ex-Nazi and she says, oh, you go to NASA yell "Heil Hitler!" and they all jump up.

I love Mallory Archer's sarcasm, even when she's a little homophobic about it (and I'm gay, too, but it still makes me laugh).

Maybe instead of a "ladies night", bars near the border could do a "Canadians drink free"?

Right. I read that some years ago when Japan was kickin' our ass (before the "lost" decade, etc.) bankers engineered a devaluation of the dollar to make it easier to buy American machinery.

anyone else watch this? I think it's a hoot. There was one episode where the agents were returning a terrorist to Canada who had fled to the US after blowing something up on behalf of the New Scotland Front ("for a free and sovereign Nova Scotia!") The 5th season got a little weird with them selling cocaine instead of being secret agents. I haven't seen anything past the last episode of Season 6 so please avoid spoilers. Netflix hasn't got Season 7 yet.

When your currency is higher-valued, it makes it more expensive for people to buy Canadian goods. So they won't. What do you think that high dollar does to your economy then?

Most likely 1,000 Koreans will get behind it to hold it up and throw it in the direction of Honolulu. So whose enemy should we be?

Our new president wants to cozy up to Russia and screw China. I have to admit, as much as I dislike him, that he's at least grasped one fundamental truth: you cannot screw both Russia and China. It's one or the other. So it brings up an important question? What to do about China as well as Russia?

B. But we're talking about something other than stolen cars aren't we? I don't see the parallel. You want to keep putting people on your ignore list because they disagree with you go ahead. I don't know why I responded to this thread in the first place. There is an expression we have in America, never argue with a fool or a drunk.

An infant? Automatically a next generation criminal? That's no different than one of us saying you're a next-generation criminal based on your religion. Would that be a fair thing to say? Really, Altai; I used to think you were a bit naive, but I think you've gone too far. Your bigoted statements have no place on this website. I have refrained from actually calling you out on that but I shall refrain no longer. If I were you I'd worry about people blocking you.