Fascists Targetting America's Youth

[Saras]

Let's see if some legal genius from UK confirms this.

[Jon Miller]

I thought the queen legally still had a lot of power

there is just a history of not using it (like she could theoretically fire every person in the army)

Jon Miller

[Saras]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I thought the queen legally still had a lot of power

there is just a history of not using it (like she could theoretically fire every person in the army)

Iirc, she also technically owns all of UK's land.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I thought the queen legally still had a lot of power

there is just a history of not using it (like she could theoretically fire every person in the army)

Jon Miller

No, the Queen is a figurehead. She could refuse to sign legislation put in front of her by the PM, but she'd quickly find herself removed as monarch, and maybe not replaced.

[Saras]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, the Queen is a figurehead. She could refuse to sign legislation put in front of her by the PM, but she'd quickly find herself removed as monarch, and maybe not replaced.

Ok che, now you speak as if you've read this in some legal document; what was that document?

[chequita guevara]

My comparative politics class. We looked at the governments of Great Britain, France, and Germany. Very interesting stuff.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, the Queen is a figurehead. She could refuse to sign legislation put in front of her by the PM, but she'd quickly find herself removed as monarch, and maybe not replaced.

True. But that means some action would have to be taken. It would not, legally, be just the Parlament saying that the monarchy was abolished.

Jon Miller

[Saras]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
My comparative politics class. We looked at the governments of Great Britain, France, and Germany. Very interesting stuff.

They teach you cool stuff. Still, I'd like to see how this would be practically implemented without a civil war.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I have to concede this point to you, but I am curious as to what you believe qualifies as an atrocity on par with the Final Solution in Germany.

America's "Manifest Destiny".

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


True. But that means some action would have to be taken. It would not, legally, be just the Parlament saying that the monarchy was abolished.

Jon Miller

Well, that might be enough really- thought the firt step would be to put heavy pressure on the monarch to get them to abdicate. You could also hold a referrendum on becoming a Republic. That is really the MOST that would have to happen.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The economy was still on a downfall in 1930. In fact, that was one of the worst years.

Huh? growth in 1930 was 5.8%
Now admittedly growth in the period 1931-32 averaged only 0.4% (However this compares with an average growth rate of -6.4% for the OECD during that period)

Originally posted by Kidicious
It's the most amazing period of economic expansion in history.

It wasn't even Germany's most amazing economic expansion.

Between 1933 and 1943 GDP increased by an annual average of 5.9% (following 20 years when GDP stagnated - so a lot of slack was available to take up).
Whereas between 1953 and 1963 GDP increased by 6.2% a year (and this following a 20 year average of 1.9% growth, making for far less 'catch-up' potential)

Originally posted by Saras
They teach you cool stuff. Still, I'd like to see how this would be practically implemented without a civil war.

There was a civil war about it, in 1643-49.
Parliment's supremacy over the monarch was confirmed in the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 when the current monarch (Charles II) was deposed and parliment invited William of Orange (Statholder of the Netherlands) to take the throne.

[problem_child]

Originally posted by Ned
And, btw, Saddam's government was fascist. There is nothing about Saddam's government that is anything like the Republican Party which emphasizes individual liberty, free trade, democracy and human rights. I also think these skinhead share none of these values, so they are not right wing.

Slogans child.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Q]Originally posted by Ned

Are both groups fascist?

No. Skinheads have various range of ideologies, but they tend to lean left or are apolitical.

I think their major impulse in individualism combined with extreme libertarianism. If so, they lean right.

[RGBVideo]

What's wrong with fascism, che?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by VJ
What's wrong with fascism, che?

Everything.