Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[Lower Nubia]

No. You’re peddling nonsense as fact, while putting the constitution on a pedestal, a bad constitution at that.



*rolls eyes catatonically*



Technically yes, but not because of a constitution - but who should have power to write one. Your civil war was because of the constitution. A fundamental difference.



“The American Civil War (also known by other names) was a civil war fought in the United States from 1861 to 1865, between the North (Union) and the South (Confederacy).[c] The most studied and written about episode in U.S. history, the Civil War began primarily as a result of the long-standing controversy over the enslavement of black people. War broke out in April 1861 when secessionist forces attacked Fort Sumter in South Carolina shortly after Abraham Lincoln had been inaugurated as the President of the United States. The loyalists of the Union in the North, which also included some geographically western and southern states, proclaimed support for the Constitution. They faced secessionists of the Confederate States in the South, who advocated for states' rights to uphold slavery.”

Gotta love those economics...



Unless those constitutional rights have de facto excluded some from having rights, then going Against the constitution with its inflexibility becomes a burden. Your assumption would be true and valuable if you had the perfect set of liberties - which you don’t, so the constitution makes actual progress difficult and burdensome.



I’m very glad ours cannot then.



Which to the slave populace, that inflexibility was a burden and produced one of the deadliest wars by proportion of body count in American history.



Fascinating, we’ve gone from empire to the isles, at this rate of decline i’m Sure we’ll be talking about the quelling the national sympathies of the Lancastrians against York.

No. A constitution would not quell nationalism in Scotland. The main reason the Scottish give for wanting independence is: governed by a Westminster that does not care for them, and Brexit.

Not a “wittten constitution”.

The US has separatist movements, it’s just the constitution forbids them from states seceding. Wait a second. That seems backwards... I thought it protected man’s liberty to choose and be free. Apparently not.

The US Civil War was not about states rights. Actually the CSA Constitution restricted states rights more than the US one in many ways. Yes it was about slavery.
But slavery is an economic matter. The economics of slavery was a big difference. Slavery was more economically important to the US.

And ironically it is actually because the US Constitution avoids the subject of slavery that created the problem!
If anything it is because the US Constitution at the time did not clearly address the issue.
If anything the US Constitution at the time was TOO FLEXIBLE on slavery!
But we fixed that. Yes it was not perfect, and still is not perfect. But better now.
We fixed excessive flexibility on slavery. The US Constitution was very flexible on slavery before the civil war, now it is not.

And just because the US constitution does not explicitly grant a certain right does not prohibit protecting that right via legislation, just like in the UK.
See so we can do the same thing you can, with added protections that you do not have.

And your own source admits the powers in the UK are actually overlapping. Your courts exist for example only because you Parliament chooses to let them exist.

It could if it chose by simple majority vote to remove any judge it wants.

And no, the US Constitution only prohibits UNILATERAL secession. A state could leave if the US Congress approved it. Unilateral secession is prohibited in the UK too.

The reason secession movements in the US are so weak is because the states have broad autonomy which is guaranteed by the constitution and that Congress cannot unilaterally change.

So I noticed we dropped the: “constitution could of maintained the empire” or that it “stops nationalistic movements”

If you’ve been paying attention you prove just what I thought, that a written constitution, which this is about, has flaws that make it no better, or even worse, than unwritten constitutions: you state it is inflexible, then that it is too flexible. Pick a narrative.

Yes it was not perfect, and still is not perfect. But better now.
We fixed excessive flexibility on slavery. The US Constitution was very flexible on slavery before the civil war, now it is not.

I’m so glad that the constitution missed this important aspect of giving other human beings rights. I love how you gloss over it that it didn’t even talk about slavery, as if that’s a good thing. As if that doesn’t entirely derail everything you’ve stated about it: “a protector of freedoms” unless it forgets. “An inflexible document.” Unless it forgets. “Too flexible a document.” Unless it forgets. I mean come on.

And just because the US constitution does not explicitly grant a certain right does not prohibit protecting that right via legislation, just like in the UK.
See so we can do the same thing you can, with added protections that you do not have.

So in other words: “where the constitution is not written, legislation just like the UK takes control”. Thanks for admitting again that a wittten constitution is limited, and unnecessary.

And your own source admits the powers in the UK are actually overlapping. Your courts exist for example only because you Parliament chooses to let them exist.

It could if it chose by simple majority vote to remove any judge it wants.

In comparison to the American problem where a a supreme judge is removed only by death. Which is great if you love ramming the courts with partisan judges - I love politicised judicial systems. There so.. what’s the word for it? Free. Yeah. That one.

I guarantee if you looked at a comparison of whose court systems are more impartial - the UK would win. Making your point - meh.

The reason secession movements in the US are so weak is because the states have broad autonomy which is guaranteed by the constitution and that Congress cannot unilaterally change.

No. It’s because they identify first as Americans, then as there own identity, if it were the other way round, no state autonomy would reduce their national sympathies. Which is kind of obvious because we have devolved parliaments too and still have national sentiments. Ergo, it’s about loyalty to their country, before there state. Which is the whole point of nationalism.

[Lower Nubia]

Lmao

*sips tea while watching that emblem of freedom, the bald eagle, fly from America’s side, over to the British isles - Where it promptly shot by British aristocrats.*

Freedom is often a subjective measurement. Neither you nor the CATO Institute may view lack of gun rights and freedom of speech as being an indicator of less freedom, but we Americans who have surpassed our Anglo forefathers as the world's superpower certainly do.

Also, I really don't get why you're trying so hard to dab on us. We're your child who who became more powerful than you.

It’s not a power contest, as if power determines “whose right” even if we were weak my points would be valid. Maybe that’s why you’re so wrong: power to you is a measure of truth... otherwise, why mention the superpower thing? I haven’t.

I live in a freer county, the score shows that as fact, get over it.

I’m pretty sure that CATO has taken into consideration the exceedingly complex social and political aspects of Americans weapons hard on. As if it was too difficult to quantify? besides most of Europe is also economically freer so you’re not even good capitalists.

[Jolthig]

Freedom is often a subjective measurement. Neither you nor the CATO Institute may view lack of gun rights and freedom of speech as being an indicator of less freedom, but we Americans who have surpassed our Anglo forefathers as the world's superpower certainly do.

Also, I really don't get why you're trying so hard to dab on us. We're your child who who became more powerful than you.

It’s not a power contest, as if power determines “whose right” even if we were weak my points would be valid. Maybe that’s why you’re so wrong: power to you is a measure of truth... otherwise, why mention the superpower thing? I haven’t.

I live in a freer county, the score shows that as fact, get over it.

I’m pretty sure that CATO has taken into consideration the exceedingly complex social and political aspects of Americans weapons hard on. As if it was too difficult to quantify? besides most of Europe is also economically freer so you’re not even good capitalists.

Living in a free country according to HRI does not disprove the US Constitution. Many other factors come into play in both countries. Heck, you can say China does capitalism better than both the US and UK because they're dominating the world while both the US and UK are declining.

[Nova Cyberia]

Freedom is often a subjective measurement. Neither you nor the CATO Institute may view lack of gun rights and freedom of speech as being an indicator of less freedom, but we Americans who have surpassed our Anglo forefathers as the world's superpower certainly do.

Also, I really don't get why you're trying so hard to dab on us. We're your child who who became more powerful than you.

It’s not a power contest, as if power determines “whose right” even if we were weak my points would be valid. Maybe that’s why you’re so wrong: power to you is a measure of truth... otherwise, why mention the superpower thing? I haven’t.

I live in a freer county, the score shows that as fact, get over it.

I’m pretty sure that CATO has taken into consideration the exceedingly complex social and political aspects of Americans weapons hard on. As if it was too difficult to quantify? besides most of Europe is also economically freer so you’re not even good capitalists.

I would certainly think that you would take our power into consideration considering that our protection of you and much of the rest of Europe through NATO is what allows you to spend next to nothing on defense and throw all your money into social programs.

[Totally Not OEP]

[Lower Nubia]

It’s not a power contest, as if power determines “whose right” even if we were weak my points would be valid. Maybe that’s why you’re so wrong: power to you is a measure of truth... otherwise, why mention the superpower thing? I haven’t.

I live in a freer county, the score shows that as fact, get over it.

I’m pretty sure that CATO has taken into consideration the exceedingly complex social and political aspects of Americans weapons hard on. As if it was too difficult to quantify? besides most of Europe is also economically freer so you’re not even good capitalists.

Living in a free country according to HRI does not disprove the US Constitution. Many other factors come into play in both countries. Heck, you can say China does capitalism better than both the US and UK because they're dominating the world while both the US and UK are declining.

Did I say it did? It certainly proves that a written constitution is no more an effective means of guaranteeing freedom than an unwritten one, which this is about.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Freedom is often a subjective measurement. Neither you nor the CATO Institute may view lack of gun rights and freedom of speech as being an indicator of less freedom, but we Americans who have surpassed our Anglo forefathers as the world's superpower certainly do.

Also, I really don't get why you're trying so hard to dab on us. We're your child who who became more powerful than you.

It’s not a power contest, as if power determines “whose right” even if we were weak my points would be valid. Maybe that’s why you’re so wrong: power to you is a measure of truth... otherwise, why mention the superpower thing? I haven’t.

I live in a freer county, the score shows that as fact, get over it.

I’m pretty sure that CATO has taken into consideration the exceedingly complex social and political aspects of Americans weapons hard on. As if it was too difficult to quantify? besides most of Europe is also economically freer so you’re not even good capitalists.

Where freedom of speech is concerned, the US destroys the UK. Just look at people being arrested for mean tweets, just look at Meechan.

[Totally Not OEP]

I'm about to start dumping Tea in the harbor

[Jolthig]

Living in a free country according to HRI does not disprove the US Constitution. Many other factors come into play in both countries. Heck, you can say China does capitalism better than both the US and UK because they're dominating the world while both the US and UK are declining.

Did I say it did? It certainly proves that a written constitution is no more an effective means of guaranteeing freedom than an unwritten one, which this is about.

Perhaps that wasn't your intention, but you made it sound like so. We can agree on the second point you made.

[Lower Nubia]

It’s not a power contest, as if power determines “whose right” even if we were weak my points would be valid. Maybe that’s why you’re so wrong: power to you is a measure of truth... otherwise, why mention the superpower thing? I haven’t.

I live in a freer county, the score shows that as fact, get over it.

I’m pretty sure that CATO has taken into consideration the exceedingly complex social and political aspects of Americans weapons hard on. As if it was too difficult to quantify? besides most of Europe is also economically freer so you’re not even good capitalists.

I would certainly think that you would take our power into consideration considering that our protection of you and much of the rest of Europe through NATO is what allows you to spend next to nothing on defense and throw all your money into social programs.

Wow, with a deflections like that you should play Cricket.

The old fashioned: he’s right but I cannot best his arguments, therefor I’ll break out the “mah guns diplomacy” technique and hope he doesn’t notice.

What a load of shit anyway: we spend 2.1% of GDP on military, you spend 2.5% - so we spend pretty equivalent levels and you STILL can’t do social programs? You’re supposed to invest the money, not burn it.

[Lower Nubia]

It’s not a power contest, as if power determines “whose right” even if we were weak my points would be valid. Maybe that’s why you’re so wrong: power to you is a measure of truth... otherwise, why mention the superpower thing? I haven’t.

I live in a freer county, the score shows that as fact, get over it.

I’m pretty sure that CATO has taken into consideration the exceedingly complex social and political aspects of Americans weapons hard on. As if it was too difficult to quantify? besides most of Europe is also economically freer so you’re not even good capitalists.

Where freedom of speech is concerned, the US destroys the UK. Just look at people being arrested for mean tweets, just look at Meechan.

Yeah, we live in a country with freedom from racism, not freedom for racism. That might be a difficult concept for Americans, but Europe doesn’t like racists.

[Kowani]

Where freedom of speech is concerned, the US destroys the UK. Just look at people being arrested for mean tweets, just look at Meechan.

Yeah, we live in a country with freedom from racism, not freedom for racism. That might be a difficult concept for Americans, but Europe doesn’t like racists.

Xeno’s Australian...

[Nova Cyberia]

I would certainly think that you would take our power into consideration considering that our protection of you and much of the rest of Europe through NATO is what allows you to spend next to nothing on defense and throw all your money into social programs.

Wow, with a deflections like that you should play Cricket.

The old fashioned: he’s right but I cannot best his arguments, therefor I’ll break out the “mah guns diplomacy” technique and hope he doesn’t notice.

What a load of shit anyway: we spend 2.1% of GDP on military, you spend 2.5% - so we spend pretty equivalent levels and you STILL can’t do social programs? You’re supposed to invest the money, not burn it.

You lot only started increasing defense spending once Trump brought the hammer down on you. Give it a rest. If we have to twist your arms to meet your NATO obligations then that's on you.

[Jolthig]

Where freedom of speech is concerned, the US destroys the UK. Just look at people being arrested for mean tweets, just look at Meechan.

Yeah, we live in a country with freedom from racism, not freedom for racism. That might be a difficult concept for Americans, but Europe doesn’t like racists.

Tell that to the nations that are banning certain Islamic and even Jewish customs like halal/kosher slaughter or banning the burqa and burkini. Much of it is based off of prejudice against Arabs.

[Lower Nubia]

Yeah, we live in a country with freedom from racism, not freedom for racism. That might be a difficult concept for Americans, but Europe doesn’t like racists.

Xeno’s Australian...

Then my apologies, the Statue of Liberty kinda threw me off. But even so It’s the same argument Americans make. “We HaVe FrEeR sPeEcH”

[Totally Not OEP]

New pet project: Kinshasa Mega Dam

[Lower Nubia]

Wow, with a deflections like that you should play Cricket.

The old fashioned: he’s right but I cannot best his arguments, therefor I’ll break out the “mah guns diplomacy” technique and hope he doesn’t notice.

What a load of shit anyway: we spend 2.1% of GDP on military, you spend 2.5% - so we spend pretty equivalent levels and you STILL can’t do social programs? You’re supposed to invest the money, not burn it.

You lot only started increasing defense spending once Trump brought the hammer down on you. Give it a rest. If we have to twist your arms to meet your NATO obligations then that's on you.

Report back to me when you bring me the UK military spending as a percentage of GDP statistics over the past 30 years.

[Nova Cyberia]

New pet project: Kinshasa Mega Dam

(Image)

>Chad Sea
>Lake Chad

wew

[Novus America]

The US Civil War was not about states rights. Actually the CSA Constitution restricted states rights more than the US one in many ways. Yes it was about slavery.
But slavery is an economic matter. The economics of slavery was a big difference. Slavery was more economically important to the US.

And ironically it is actually because the US Constitution avoids the subject of slavery that created the problem!
If anything it is because the US Constitution at the time did not clearly address the issue.
If anything the US Constitution at the time was TOO FLEXIBLE on slavery!
But we fixed that. Yes it was not perfect, and still is not perfect. But better now.
We fixed excessive flexibility on slavery. The US Constitution was very flexible on slavery before the civil war, now it is not.

And just because the US constitution does not explicitly grant a certain right does not prohibit protecting that right via legislation, just like in the UK.
See so we can do the same thing you can, with added protections that you do not have.

And your own source admits the powers in the UK are actually overlapping. Your courts exist for example only because you Parliament chooses to let them exist.

It could if it chose by simple majority vote to remove any judge it wants.

And no, the US Constitution only prohibits UNILATERAL secession. A state could leave if the US Congress approved it. Unilateral secession is prohibited in the UK too.

The reason secession movements in the US are so weak is because the states have broad autonomy which is guaranteed by the constitution and that Congress cannot unilaterally change.

So I noticed we dropped the: “constitution could of maintained the empire” or that it “stops nationalistic movements”

If you’ve been paying attention you prove just what I thought, that a written constitution, which this is about, has flaws that make it no better, or even worse, than unwritten constitutions: you state it is inflexible, then that it is too flexible. Pick a narrative.

Yes it was not perfect, and still is not perfect. But better now.
We fixed excessive flexibility on slavery. The US Constitution was very flexible on slavery before the civil war, now it is not.

I’m so glad that the constitution missed this important aspect of giving other human beings rights. I love how you gloss over it that it didn’t even talk about slavery, as if that’s a good thing. As if that doesn’t entirely derail everything you’ve stated about it: “a protector of freedoms” unless it forgets. “An inflexible document.” Unless it forgets. “Too flexible a document.” Unless it forgets. I mean come on.

And just because the US constitution does not explicitly grant a certain right does not prohibit protecting that right via legislation, just like in the UK.
See so we can do the same thing you can, with added protections that you do not have.

So in other words: “where the constitution is not written, legislation just like the UK takes control”. Thanks for admitting again that a wittten constitution is limited, and unnecessary.

And your own source admits the powers in the UK are actually overlapping. Your courts exist for example only because you Parliament chooses to let them exist.

It could if it chose by simple majority vote to remove any judge it wants.

In comparison to the American problem where a a supreme judge is removed only by death. Which is great if you love ramming the courts with partisan judges - I love politicised judicial systems. There so.. what’s the word for it? Free. Yeah. That one.

I guarantee if you looked at a comparison of whose court systems are more impartial - the UK would win. Making your point - meh.

The reason secession movements in the US are so weak is because the states have broad autonomy which is guaranteed by the constitution and that Congress cannot unilaterally change.

No. It’s because they identify first as Americans, then as there own identity, if it were the other way round, no state autonomy would reduce their national sympathies. Which is kind of obvious because we have devolved parliaments too and still have national sentiments. Ergo, it’s about loyalty to their country, before there state. Which is the whole point of nationalism.

No, I have not missed that point. Remember you had two civil wars, but you lost one.
Which is why the US exists. The US exists because we found your Constitution woefully inadequate.

The US Constitution is a reason why the people identify as American first. The federal system we have allows that. Because it keeps state loyalty and loyalty to the US as whole from coming into too much conflict.

Now looking at it in the British sense, the US Constitution is actually the US Constitution PLUS the US Code. The Constitution is the skeleton. Not the whole body. And a skeleton should be rigid.
The US Code is the rest.
This explains why the US Constitution can be both flexible and in parts rigid. You skeleton is rigid.
Your muscles are not.
But the skeleton is still essential.

The muscles would not work without it. The combination of the flexible muscles AND the rigid skeleton is what makes the system work.

Obviously the failure of the US Constitution to initially solve the slavery problem was a major failure. But it was fixed. That is no longer a problem. The US Constitution is not perfect and can be changed. Just not unilaterally only by the Congress. Enough states also have to agree.

The fact that judges cannot be removed easily (they can be but it is difficult) helps protect their impartiality. If they can be removed easily they are more easily influenced by politics.

[Nova Cyberia]

You lot only started increasing defense spending once Trump brought the hammer down on you. Give it a rest. If we have to twist your arms to meet your NATO obligations then that's on you.

Report back to me when you bring me the UK military spending as a percentage of GDP statistics over the past 30 years.

Gladly.

Also, your military spending is actually only 1.8% so it would seem you told a bit of a fib.

[Lower Nubia]

Yeah, we live in a country with freedom from racism, not freedom for racism. That might be a difficult concept for Americans, but Europe doesn’t like racists.

Tell that to the nations that are banning certain Islamic and even Jewish customs like halal/kosher slaughter or banning the burqa and burkini. Much of it is based off of prejudice against Arabs.

You seriously can’t be saying that America is more tolerant than those European societies? In reality most of that legislation is about banning hiding ones face less so than prejudice. Other wise the niqab would be equally under fire, while it is often just the burqa.

I blame that need for intervention on the rising anti-terrorist legislation caused, in part, by America’s and Britain’s continued fucking up in the Middle East.

[Kowani]

The fact that judges cannot be removed easily (they can be but it is difficult) helps protect their impartiality. If they can be removed easily they are more easily influenced by politics.

Nope. Other way around, actually. Because they have less fear of being removed, they can legislate from the bench with near impunity.

[Novus America]

I would certainly think that you would take our power into consideration considering that our protection of you and much of the rest of Europe through NATO is what allows you to spend next to nothing on defense and throw all your money into social programs.

Wow, with a deflections like that you should play Cricket.

The old fashioned: he’s right but I cannot best his arguments, therefor I’ll break out the “mah guns diplomacy” technique and hope he doesn’t notice.

What a load of shit anyway: we spend 2.1% of GDP on military, you spend 2.5% - so we spend pretty equivalent levels and you STILL can’t do social programs? You’re supposed to invest the money, not burn it.

Actually we spend 3.5%.
But we still spend more on social programs than the military.

[Lower Nubia]

Report back to me when you bring me the UK military spending as a percentage of GDP statistics over the past 30 years.

Gladly.

Also, your military spending is actually only 1.8% so it would seem you told a bit of a fib.

That graph shows that our GDP spending was better before Trump. Which makes your previous analysis bullshit. Also, I was right as we did spend 2.1% on GDP, that was just in 2013.

[Novus America]

The fact that judges cannot be removed easily (they can be but it is difficult) helps protect their impartiality. If they can be removed easily they are more easily influenced by politics.

Nope. Other way around, actually. Because they have less fear of being removed, they can legislate from the bench with near impunity.

If you could easily remove them then they would be more political, because they would have to please the party in power.