Wait, I thought you were talking about him applying for ruler of the US, not the UK? And in any case Scotland has not declared independence yet, nor decided whether it will remain a monarchy or not, so it cannot be deemed a "breakaway republic"...
]]>The sad fact is, for the past 48 years British foreign policy has been to try and be the Mini-Me to the USA's Dr. Evil.
]]>The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will end up costing as much as $6 trillion. Where did that money come from?
Anyway, I'm sold on Putin/Palin '16. Bartender, I'll have what Charlie's having.
]]>Antonin Scalia as the Chief Justice in 2016 is implausible. Justices do not automatically become Chief Justices upon the former CJ's retirement or death, instead, someone (justice or not) needs to be nominated for the post by the incumbent president and confirmed by the senate, which is what happened when CJ Roberts got the job after Rehnquist died (the then-senior Justice Stevens did not automatically get the job; Roberts was not even in the Court). Given that you're looking to replace Barack Obama in this scenario, the POTUS is not likely to nominate Scalia.
It's also irrelevant. The CJ is a post of administrative power and prestige, not of judicial power beyond that granted to any Justice. Any merits question in this matter would eventually be submitted to the full Court, in which it takes five votes to create an outcome. The CJ does not have to be in the majority. So it might as well be Justice Scalia who writes the opinion for the court; he does not have to be Chief.
]]>And, of course, anyone with "communist" leanings will immediately explode & deny it, in the same way that other religious believers explode & deny it, when I point out that their "path" (whichever one it is) is just blackmail ....
]]>NO - because. Religions tend to try to exclude & persecute ( & torture & kill ) their opponents. Political parties & leaders (normal ones at any rate) do none of these things. There are other major differences, that anyone without such lazy inapplicable generalisations could note, as well.
]]>Actually, this distinction of "normal" politics is something of the "true scotsman" argument; problem is, violence is hardly confined to religions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proscription#Proscription_of_82_BC
As for communism being a religion, amen to that, though it seems like this is not that uncommon for economy, err, "science".
]]>Really? It depends on what you mean by 'normal ones ' but hows about New Labour as the New Normal?
" Zoe Williams wants us to get nostalgic about Blairism. But in her attempt to defend Tony Blair's record she badly misjudges the significance of the Iraq war. By any standards, Iraq was a catastrophe. The most recent study suggests nearly half a million people were killed as a result of a western military operation that tore up the fabric of a modern society and divided its people. By rights, no politician intimately responsible for such a cataclysm should survive with any kind of reputation intact. A criminal process is entirely appropriate.
But the Iraq war was more than a disaster in itself. It was a signifier of new and disturbing times. It wasn't an isolated blunder; it marked the moment when the wider population became fully aware of a new foreign policy posture, developed in Washington, enabled and encouraged by Blair himself. The parody of Blair as US poodle diminishes his role in history. "
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/14/blairism-britain-iraq-war-tony-blair
Anyway ..OF COURSE Political Parties ' exclude & persecute ' Its how they are founded and then develop and evolve. The whole Blairism phenomena wouldn't have been possible without the vicious infighting and factional feuding that preceeded the formation of 'new ' Labour.
"Hope for a revival in Labour's fortunes came from Welsh MP Neil Kinnock, who replaced Michael Foot as leader in 1983. Kinnock first sought to sideline the extreme left within the party, such as the group Militant, and then to restore Labour's image with the general public. His speech to the 1985 Party Conference, where he attacked Militant from the platform, was seen as a sign of the new Labour leader's courage and commitment to change. This was followed by changes to Labour's image, headed by a new Campaigns and Communications directorate under Peter Mandelson."
]]>The right-wing of the Conservative hate "benefits scroungers" with a passion. How they define that is up for grabs of course. But under the guise of 'rational reform of the benefits system' the people worst affected are pretty easy to pick out.
The latest proposal - you will have to pay for the right to appeal any decision made by the benefits office - sounds a lot like persecution. I don't doubt there are malicious litigants, but making the people on benefits pay an amount you know they can't afford to challenge your decisions? That's just cruel.
]]>http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-christmas-speculation.html
(Yes, it's Greer again, what can I do, he's starting to become a reference to me...)
]]>