Proof that Savage is going around advocating terrorism or violence, please.ghettoperson wrote:
Proof of what? That I don't know whether they all advocate terrorism?
Read my post again, that's not what I said.
The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy not an absolute monarchy the Prime Minister & Parliament make the laws.FEOS wrote:
She is the head of state, is she not?FatherTed wrote:
The Queen doesn't 'lead' GB.FEOS wrote:
But strange that our leader is not also the head of the national church...like the Queen is in England.
Odd that people living in that scenario can, with a straight face, comment on any other country's separation of church and state--much less claim that they have it when others do not.
WiKi ANswers wrote:
The United Kingdom and Commonwealth realms are all Constitutional Monarchy, which means that all actions of the government are carried out in The Queen's name but all decisions about government policy are made by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, who are elected members of Parliament. In theory her powers are vast; however, in practice (and in accordance with convention), she rarely intervenes in political matters.
There ya go her powers in a nutshell for you guys.WiKI wrote:
Personal powers of the Monarch
It is a matter of academic debate how far there are unusual circumstances in which the Monarch could and should actually exercise powers. Any exercise of the Monarch's discretion or reserve powers may well cause some aggrieved party to claim a constitutional crisis. The most obvious case for exercising powers without the Prime Minister's advice is when there is no Prime Minister, or when he is subject to a disqualifying conflict of interests, such as in advising upon his own office.
[edit] Appointment of the Prime Minister
Whenever necessary, the Monarch is responsible for appointing a new Prime Minister (who by convention appoints and may dismiss every other Minister of the Crown, and thereby constitutes and controls H.M. Government). In accordance with unwritten constitutional conventions, the Sovereign must appoint an individual who commands the support of the House of Commons, usually the leader of the party or coalition that has a majority in that House. The Prime Minister takes office by attending the Monarch in private audience, and Kissing Hands, and that appointment is immediately effective without any other formality or instrument.[10] In a "hung parliament", in which no party or coalition holds a majority, the monarch has an increased degree of latitude in choosing the individual likely to command most support, but it would usually be the leader of the largest party.[11][12] Since 1945, there has only been one hung parliament, following the February 1974 general election. After failed negotiations between the incumbent prime minister Edward Heath and Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe, Heath resigned and Harold Wilson was appointed Prime Minister. Although Wilson's Labour Party did not have a majority, they were the largest party.
On the sudden death of a Prime Minister, it is arguable whether the Monarch is bound to appoint the successor on the advice of some (and which) of her Ministers, or perhaps of the Cabinet, or the Privy Council.
[edit] Dissolution of Parliament
In 1950 the King's Private Secretary writing pseudonymously to the Times newspaper asserted a constitutional convention: according to the Lascelles Principles, if a minority government asked to dissolve Parliament to call an early election to strengthen its position, the monarch could refuse, and would do so under three conditions. When Prime Minister Wilson requested a dissolution late in 1974, the Queen granted his request as Heath had already failed to form a coalition. The resulting general election gave Wilson a small majority.[13] It is notable that, whatever the authority of the Lascelles Principles when published in 1950, in 1994 the English historian Peter Hennessy noted that they had somehow been varied: "the second of the three conditions has since been "dropped from the canon", being no longer included in internal Cabinet Office guidance". However, although the letter and guidance might indicate their current views, neither the King or his Private Secretary, nor the Cabinet Office is legally definitive upon the subject.
[edit] Dismissal of Government
The monarch could in theory unilaterally dismiss a Prime Minister, most obviously upon electoral defeat, but in practice a Prime Minister's term now comes to an end only by death or resignation. The last monarch to remove a Prime Minister was William IV, who dismissed Lord Melbourne in 1834.[14]
Quote of the year so far "Fifa 11 on the other hand... shiny things for mongos "-mtb0minime
He's a well known trouble maker. Best to keep them out.Turquoise wrote:
True, but that would seem to be more an issue of whether or not someone is actually inciting riots and encouraging violence. Anyone doing those things can understandably be banned.ghettoperson wrote:
We ban extremist Muslim preachers from visiting the UK, so I have no issues extending that to Christian extremists.
As hateful as Savage can be, I haven't heard him advocate terrorism.
She has no real legal power. If she actually used any of her powers in a way Parliament disaproved of, they'd tell her not to and nothing would come of it. Because by law, the government can tell the Queen that she's not allowed to exercise her powers - making them little more than ceremonial formalities.Turquoise wrote:
The Queen may not, in practice, lead the government, but by law, she has a considerable amount of power.FatherTed wrote:
The Queen doesn't 'lead' GB.FEOS wrote:
But strange that our leader is not also the head of the national church...like the Queen is in England.
Odd that people living in that scenario can, with a straight face, comment on any other country's separation of church and state--much less claim that they have it when others do not.
I think ghetto's defense was better. Consistency in policy must be promoted, so if Savage incites the same amount of hatred that these Muslim clerics have that were banned, then I understand why he was kept out.Bertster7 wrote:
He's a well known trouble maker. Best to keep them out.Turquoise wrote:
True, but that would seem to be more an issue of whether or not someone is actually inciting riots and encouraging violence. Anyone doing those things can understandably be banned.ghettoperson wrote:
We ban extremist Muslim preachers from visiting the UK, so I have no issues extending that to Christian extremists.
As hateful as Savage can be, I haven't heard him advocate terrorism.
As far as I can tell though... Geert Wilders was considerably less hateful than Savage or these Muslims. He may be prejudiced, but the majority of what he has to say is simply critical of Islam. That's not the same thing as inciting hatred, yet you also banned Wilders.
I think you guys have gone down a very slippery slope by banning people over their speech.
Then why have the position? Royalty seems about as useless as America's Electoral College. Why not leave such outdated traditions behind?Bertster7 wrote:
She has no real legal power. If she actually used any of her powers in a way Parliament disaproved of, they'd tell her not to and nothing would come of it. Because by law, the government can tell the Queen that she's not allowed to exercise her powers - making them little more than ceremonial formalities.Turquoise wrote:
The Queen may not, in practice, lead the government, but by law, she has a considerable amount of power.FatherTed wrote:
The Queen doesn't 'lead' GB.
Last time I looked, there weren't guys with crosses on their armor trying to take Jerusalem from the infidels.Dilbert_X wrote:
Apart from the current crusade in the ME?FEOS wrote:
People talk a lot about their religious convictions, but policy doesn't reflect that.
Nice try, though.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Because they like the tradition. Part of the national identity/culture.Turquoise wrote:
I think ghetto's defense was better. Consistency in policy must be promoted, so if Savage incites the same amount of hatred that these Muslim clerics have that were banned, then I understand why he was kept out.Bertster7 wrote:
He's a well known trouble maker. Best to keep them out.Turquoise wrote:
True, but that would seem to be more an issue of whether or not someone is actually inciting riots and encouraging violence. Anyone doing those things can understandably be banned.ghettoperson wrote:
We ban extremist Muslim preachers from visiting the UK, so I have no issues extending that to Christian extremists.
As hateful as Savage can be, I haven't heard him advocate terrorism.
As far as I can tell though... Geert Wilders was considerably less hateful than Savage or these Muslims. He may be prejudiced, but the majority of what he has to say is simply critical of Islam. That's not the same thing as inciting hatred, yet you also banned Wilders.
I think you guys have gone down a very slippery slope by banning people over their speech.Then why have the position? Royalty seems about as useless as America's Electoral College. Why not leave such outdated traditions behind?Bertster7 wrote:
She has no real legal power. If she actually used any of her powers in a way Parliament disaproved of, they'd tell her not to and nothing would come of it. Because by law, the government can tell the Queen that she's not allowed to exercise her powers - making them little more than ceremonial formalities.Turquoise wrote:
The Queen may not, in practice, lead the government, but by law, she has a considerable amount of power.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
It's a good point, and don't get me wrong, it is something that concerns me. At the moment however, they're not banning hundreds of people a year and it does seem to be fairly unpleasant types that are banned, so until something a little more questionable happens I'm all for it.Turquoise wrote:
I think you guys have gone down a very slippery slope by banning people over their speech.
Because IMO, it just doesn't matter. It's nice for the tourists to go look at and take some photos, but the British public lose nothing by having a royal family. The Electoral College on the other hand, affects the American people every 4 years, and in a close race could change things in a big way.Turquoise wrote:
Then why have the position? Royalty seems about as useless as America's Electoral College. Why not leave such outdated traditions behind?Bertster7 wrote:
She has no real legal power. If she actually used any of her powers in a way Parliament disaproved of, they'd tell her not to and nothing would come of it. Because by law, the government can tell the Queen that she's not allowed to exercise her powers - making them little more than ceremonial formalities.Turquoise wrote:
The Queen may not, in practice, lead the government, but by law, she has a considerable amount of power.
Because the majority like these outdated traditions. Ties in with national history and all the pomp and circumstance that goes along with that.Turquoise wrote:
Then why have the position? Royalty seems about as useless as America's Electoral College. Why not leave such outdated traditions behind?Bertster7 wrote:
She has no real legal power. If she actually used any of her powers in a way Parliament disaproved of, they'd tell her not to and nothing would come of it. Because by law, the government can tell the Queen that she's not allowed to exercise her powers - making them little more than ceremonial formalities.Turquoise wrote:
The Queen may not, in practice, lead the government, but by law, she has a considerable amount of power.
It's a net economic benefit to the nation - so why not?
The royal family also do an excellent job at being more amusing ambassadors for the nation. Prince Phillip does make me chuckle....
Good point on the Electoral College, but you do lose something from royalty. Tax money.ghettoperson wrote:
It's a good point, and don't get me wrong, it is something that concerns me. At the moment however, they're not banning hundreds of people a year and it does seem to be fairly unpleasant types that are banned, so until something a little more questionable happens I'm all for it.Turquoise wrote:
I think you guys have gone down a very slippery slope by banning people over their speech.Because IMO, it just doesn't matter. It's nice for the tourists to go look at and take some photos, but the British public lose nothing by having a royal family. The Electoral College on the other hand, affects the American people every 4 years, and in a close race could change things in a big way.Turquoise wrote:
Then why have the position? Royalty seems about as useless as America's Electoral College. Why not leave such outdated traditions behind?Bertster7 wrote:
She has no real legal power. If she actually used any of her powers in a way Parliament disaproved of, they'd tell her not to and nothing would come of it. Because by law, the government can tell the Queen that she's not allowed to exercise her powers - making them little more than ceremonial formalities.
Then again, if what Bert is saying is true, then I guess there's a net gain in revenue from tourism, eh?
Michael Savage Dropped From "Flagship" Radio Station
For some people who are supposed to be open minded they sure are going in a closed minded direction.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/1 … 83508.htmlReason wrote:
I'm going to answer the very first question many of you have.
"Why did you take Michael Savage off the air?"
Here's your no-spin direct answer; we have decided to go in a different philosophical and ideological direction, featuring more contemporary content and more local information. The Savage Nation does not fit into that vision.
For some people who are supposed to be open minded they sure are going in a closed minded direction.
There's a difference between being open-minded and being complacent.Macbeth wrote:
Michael Savage Dropped From "Flagship" Radio Stationhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/1 … 83508.htmlReason wrote:
I'm going to answer the very first question many of you have.
"Why did you take Michael Savage off the air?"
Here's your no-spin direct answer; we have decided to go in a different philosophical and ideological direction, featuring more contemporary content and more local information. The Savage Nation does not fit into that vision.
For some people who are supposed to be open minded they sure are going in a closed minded direction.
It's not hard to see why a channel would drop Savage, and I'm glad they did. It only bothers me when a government censors people.
What's the 'fags' comment supposed to mean? Are you upset your dumbass of a hero got taken off the air?Macbeth wrote:
Michael Savage Dropped From "Flagship" Radio Stationhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/1 … 83508.htmlReason wrote:
I'm going to answer the very first question many of you have.
"Why did you take Michael Savage off the air?"
Here's your no-spin direct answer; we have decided to go in a different philosophical and ideological direction, featuring more contemporary content and more local information. The Savage Nation does not fit into that vision.
For some people who are supposed to be open minded they sure are going in a closed minded direction.
Did you guys just see how Macbeth just said fags in a super secret way?
Oh Man! I said to myself, there's some kind of code in this text as there seems to be more to this than meets the eye.
Luckily I broke his code and figured out what he was saying.
Oh Man! I said to myself, there's some kind of code in this text as there seems to be more to this than meets the eye.
Luckily I broke his code and figured out what he was saying.
You ever noticed how reactionary people are when they don't realize a joke?
It's not a very good joke if no one gets it.