Far left liberals are reaping what they have sown

[Show Me the Wire]

The Conservative-dominated upper chamber had rejected Lloyd George's annual finance bill of 1909, a controversial budget which included several significant social welfare provisions. The government was deadlocked with the unelected Lords, and threatened to flood the upper chamber with specially created peers simply in order to force its finance bill through Parliament.

It was in this context that George V was faced with a difficult decision. Asquith and Lloyd George required the King's consent to create such a large number of new peers; naturally the Conservative opposition expected the monarch to refuse to break with convention in creating so many party political peers

http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/georgev.htm

Why would an official in a liberal democracy need a monarch's permission to govern?

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/georgev.htm

Why would an official in a liberal democracy need a monarch's permission to govern?

The King was used as a political prop. Deference to the monarch is quite common in modern British times. Your article even states the King didn't rule anything made his intention known and the budget was passed without him. It also was a rare constitutional crises.

Churchill was forbidden from visiting the front on several occasions by George VI.

Like I said if you want to argue this there is no point continuing. Britain is ruled by a parliament has been for centuries.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Marshall Bennett

Your inflated ego is the number 1 culprit. Why else would you spend the time you do in OT? Its a horse racing site first isn't it, created by you? My post aren't unlike several other conservatives here. Perhaps more pronounced at times.
No, I've rattled your ego in the past and you just aren't mature enough to get over it. You don't disagree with my post, you probably like an aggressive approach with liberals...in fact I'm sure you do. You simply hate me, and it has nothing to do with what I say anymore.
You really shouldn't put your mind in the heads of the radical left and decide how they'll think either. Most of their thinking is just weird..you know.

This entire reply of yours makes zero sense to me.

[Marshall Bennett]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

This entire reply of yours makes zero sense to me.

That's okay. At least it avoids any other excuses.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

To be honest...I don"t much relate to John Maynard Keynes either.

I am closer to Maynard G. Krebs myself.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I do the same on a nightly basis...to the point where YouTube now is my sole entertainment channel...gambling notwithstanding. It's amazing what content you can find there.

I get lost in there some nights.
The other night, I was listening to 1970's rock on on computer and watching 1960's wrestling videos on another until 4am.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Let me put it this way:

The more I associate with people, on the street and online...the more I start thinking that I might be an alien from another planet...

I'm gonna have to have a sample of your DNA......

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

First, I agree democracies are a better form of government. Second France and Britain would not have the war without the U.S. They did not have the man power or the resources to keep on waging such a brutal war. Their soldiers refused to continue offense fighting. If Wilson kept the U.S. out of the war France and Britain would have had to negotiate a peace treaty to end the conflict.

And if Germany has not be humiliated in WWI, WWII might never have happened.
And Then the Korean war might not have happened....and Viet Nam. Been a lot of great stuff on the Smithsonian Channel and the AHC channels about both wars.

The root cause for WWI and all that followed was the stupid beliefs of people that there are such things as Kings and Queens and royalty. I assure you, that are not. The egos of so-called royals, including the Bitch of England's family, have cost millions of innocent people their lives for no good reason.
The world needs to purge itself of anyone who claims any form of royalty.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

The King was used as a political prop. Deference to the monarch is quite common in modern British times. Your article even states the King didn't rule anything made his intention known and the budget was passed without him. It also was a rare constitutional crises.

Churchill was forbidden from visiting the front on several occasions by George VI.

Like I said if you want to argue this there is no point continuing. Britain is ruled by a parliament has been for centuries.

It was in this context that George V was faced with a difficult decision. Asquith and Lloyd George required the King's consent to create such a large number of new peers; naturally the Conservative opposition expected the monarch to refuse to break with convention in creating so many party political peers. http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/georgev.htm


Do you know what the word "required" means?

re·quired
rəˈkwī(ə)rd/Submit
adjective
officially compulsory, or otherwise considered essential; indispensable.
"eight editions were published, each required reading for trainees"
in keeping with one's wishes; desired.
"the corset, the garment that ensured the required female shape"

If it is required it is not done in deference. Why did a liberal democracy governmental official need the consent of a monarch to take a specific action?

Eventually George agreed to Asquith's request to grant permission to create the new peers if necessary; at which point the Lords capitulated and passed Lloyd George's budget.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/georgev.htm

con·sent
kənˈsent/Submit
noun
1.
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
"no change may be made without the consent of all the partners"
synonyms: agreement, assent, acceptance, approval, approbation; More
verb
1.
give permission for something to happen.
"he consented to a search by a detective"

[Show Me the Wire]

28-year-old socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is another example of reaping what you sow. The dem leadership continues misreading the Latin/ Hispanic American populace.

The question is when is the so-called big tent, for the disenfranchised, too big for the entrenched dem leadership?

They misread the the Cuban voting bloc, who hate communism, by allowing a gunpoint raid removing Elián González from his U.S. family to send him to Cuba and the leadership misread them again when they decided to anger the Cuban voting bloc again via ending for Cuban "dry foot" refugee status.

Once again they are misreading the Latin America culture. Many of the people from Mexico, Central America, and South America have communistic or socialists leanings. The leadership trying to play identity politics are trying to convince these people to belong to the dem party, because they are disfranchised, and the current leadership will give them a bunch of freebies.

Where the leadership is misreading this population is in who these people will support as leaders in the party. As communists and socialists, they believe they are entitled to free things from the government, but they don't believe they need leadership from the likes of Pelosi and Schumer. This new voting bloc will turn to people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

In the long-run the leadership trying to hold on to power are effectively giving it away just as they did with the Cuban voting bloc.

Wake up dems, start enforcing our border, before it is to late for you. Your tent is too big, especially when you fill it with people who are going to take you down and want to change the form of government.

For a country to survive we need the two major viable parties working to strengthening the country and its form of government.

[biggestal99]

when Trump leaves (and he will either in 2021 or 2025) americans nationwide will come to realize what a bad president he was.

1. Trade wars--why?

2. separating children from their parents---why?

3. pissing off our friends and consorting with out enemies--why?

4. lying about almost everything---why?

5. increasing the national debt---why?

6. belittling his opponents--why?

7. pushing energy policies to promote obsolete and costly energy sources--why?

Lots of whys with little response from his supporters except MAGA. LOL

Allan

[Tom]

That list is why we already think he is a GREAT president.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

when Trump leaves (and he will either in 2021 or 2025) americans nationwide will come to realize what a bad president he was.

I thought they already have. Aren't certain people on here posting poll after poll about how Trump is WORST PREZ EVAH?!?!?

I could give you a reasonable answer to every one of your questions, but why waste my time?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I thought they already have. Aren't certain people on here posting poll after poll about how Trump is WORST PREZ EVAH?!?!?

I could give you a reasonable answer to every one of your questions, but why waste my time?

biggestal99's post is additional evidence supporting David Mamet's observation about liberals. To continue their illogical belief systems genuine liberals have to pretend not to know a lot of things.

[Tom]

I could give you a reasonable answer to every one of your questions, but why waste my time?

My answer to most of them would be "You mean like 0bama did?"
The rest would be "Why not?"