crooks

The reverse is generally somewhat true, though not to the same degree, or friendliness (it's hard to be truly friendly with your historical arch-enemy, especially considering that we are polar opposites in attitude anyway) and certainly not when the idea of a bonny auld reunion is talked about.

Your wording is wrong, we were never your servants - that alone highlights the English attitude to the Irish, that we are always on some level your inferiors, something which we have shown thousands of times throughout history to be untrue.

I prefer the more accurate terms of our relationship - you were the foreign Imperialists, we were the natives who just wanted to live peacefully in a free land, with us in charge.

You never accepted it, so we had to turn it into a brawl - one neither of us won, though we agreed to part ways, due to the overwhelming desire from the Irish to do so.

Religious bigotry?

I agree, attempts at mass conversion/rape/starvation/pillage by Protestant British invaders played a huge part.

This is where your post start to seethe with infuriating condensation - Religious fanaticism?

Catholicism was strong in Ireland because the alternative was your faith - the Scots may have felt great about putting themselves down with Calvinism (they've always been happy to play your lapdog), but the Church was a very important institution in Irish life, and Ireland's only direct contact with Protestantism was through the likes of Ollie Cromwell - something of a hero in England I believe, he brutally butchered his way across Ireland in the name of Protestantism and also led the Plantation of Ulster, settling Scots and English who should never have come, into the North East of the country, and in doing so created 400 years of bitter conflict between their decendents and those of the native Irish gaels whose land they took.

If this was how an alternative faith greeted you, especially when it was your arch-enemy who brought it, would you be likely to join the convert list?

Ah yes! Wouldn't it be much better if the English relieved us of the 'stress' and 'pain' of having to rule ourselves?!

We silly Irish can't do anything like rule, why that requires an Imperialist Englishman's loving caress!

That's like saying it makes no sense for the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway or even the US to be independent, because very few nations make sense in a pratical manner - Ireland however, actually does, it's an easily defined territory (the island of Ireland), and it's people are most certainly a nation.

As you I both know, nation's don't spring from the earth they're built on, but from the people who live in them.

Culturally, Politically, Liguistically (from a historical point of view, and even today) and in most other ways it makes perfect sense for the Irish nation to be independent from the island next to it, especially as this bigger island has traditionally only ever wished us harm.

It also makes sense for Wales and Scotland to be indepedent, they are seperate nations as well, though without the bonus of having a sea between them and the English hun.

I think I speak for everyone in Ireland when I say Dream on - it's the 'Rule Britannia Tory Queen-Kissing' type of person's wetdream, but it ain't gonna happen, now or ever.
Irish people have simply moved on from those days, British people (or some of them, at least) obviously haven't.

The cold simple truth is that Irish people have zero interest in the UK beyond what we see in Coronation Street or Emmerdale - the EU is liked more, and seen as the future, the UK is just seen as a neighbour, kinda interesting in a vague, detached way, but you haven't got a real desire to know them as anything more than aqquaintences and the idea of moving in with them gives you little more than a long chuckle.

Far more likely is the disintegration of the UK, as Scotland and Wales assert themselves as true nations like Ireland - I also hope for Irish unity, in the event of this happening, completing the first time that every people in Britain and Ireland have an indepedent state for themselves - would that be so bad?

Éire go brach!

Ironduke

I don't see any sense at all in that argument. Ireland is not threatened by any outside powers, and doesn't stand to gain anything from becoming a part of the UK again. Trade and economic policy are an increasingly pan-European concern since the creation of the European Union. Besides, they want to be independent.

With regards to a "confederate" UK, you just need to develop the correct amount of federalism. The UK was for too long a unitary state, and assigning separate roles to the national government and subnational regions would be the best way to go. Germany has its Lander, the US, states. Local government is more responsive to the needs of people than the national government.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

JAD_333

Electorial College is a buffer against a popularly elected candidate who, it is discovered the day after the election, is an alien from outer space. I am for keeping it.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

Cowman88

There is no way to work a poular vote. Plus there is to little intrest.

Tibbetts

It would for me. This nation survive very well without the "Under God" crap all over the place. It was added in the 20th Century to counter-weight the supposed "Commie Invasion". lol...

Since they were "Atheist heathens" and all. But seriously, the "Under God" is unnecessary in a government that isn't suppose to support one religion over another. I find that ironic as hell, that a country that believes in Freedom of Religon, would support one above all others.

EC vs. Popular Vote: I was torn about this. Both systems have good points when argued. But, in the end, I went for EC.

But, then again, the way the EC operates now, it is useless. It's basicly the Popular Vote, but without the other Candidates getting their just do in votes. So maybe abolishing it wouldn't be such a bad thing after all.

Confusing, I know, but I think this definately needs to be addressed. Whether Congress will actually do that, is yet to be seen.


-Tibbetts

__________________
War is the one constant in Human history. Too deny that, is too deny our vary nature. -- Me

JAD_333

Belief in God is not a religion. Every major religion and their offshoots believe in God. So, what religion does our government favor by saying "under God"?

The phrase may be superfluous, however, since our government has no mandate to confirm or deny the existence of God. We have many fine people who are atheists. In a sense they are excluded when we say "one nation under God."

It's useless like a fire alarm that hasn't ever been pulled. Inasmuch as there is no winner until the college votes; it is a buffer against any abhorrent outcome you can imagine to the popular election. More importantly, it is a way to ensure less populated states have a voice in the choice of president. We are, after all, a federal republic.

dalem

Bah. I've never felt excluded.

-dale

JAD_333

That settles that, assuming you are the archtypical atheist, and wither thou goest, so goeth the others.

dalem

That, of course, I can't speak to. All I know is that I've never felt excluded and I don't see why anyone else of my stripe would.

-dale

Ironduke

Should the popular vote determine the winner of the electoral votes in states?

Tibbetts

Christianity? Other religions call 'god' other things. If you asked a Muslim, if 'god' and 'allah' were the same, they'd probably say no.

Exactely, government cannot confirm, nor deny, it exists. So why have it on Federal documents?

People keep saying that, but how does the EC do that? If you are a larger state, you still have more say in a vote in the EC. If it was a Popular Vote, at least all votes would be counted towards the appropriate candidate.

I don't feel excluded either. I just find it funny, and hypocritical, that a nation that says it believes in Freedom of Religion, would put one deity on its documents above others. lol...


-Tibbetts

dalem

Well, we are, no matter what anyone tries to say to the contrary, a Christian nation based on Christian ideals.

-dale

JAD_333

Should it or does it? It does in states that require it; about half do.

JAD_333

"God of Islam" is their term. The Jewish religion has a word for God, too. There are differences in how each sect or religion defines God. To me, a supreme being is all inclusive: jews, christians, muslims. cannibals, atheists, holy rollers, and dems...






A state gets 1 vote for each seat it has in the House Representatives and 1 for each Senator. House seats are based on population, but Senate seats are not. So, each state gets 2 votes regardless of population. In all, 100 of the 530 plus electoral votes, or just less than 20%, are not based on population. This is how less populated states have a disproportionate say in the outcome.

Tibbetts

True.

Isn't that a bit bigotted of you? To lump everyone under your version of beliefs? To assume that your god is everyones god?

Umm... That still doesn't show me how the Electoral College is better than a Popular Vote. With a Popular Vote, everyone of voting age gets a vote. Whether it's a small state or a larger state, every voting Citizen gets a direct vote. If there was a Popular Vote for President, I think more Americans would be willing to get their lazy ass out to vote on Election Day.


-Tibbetts