@Gnoupi: an unholy place where Jeff stole the Orangered Envelope™ from, and where people gather to document in great detail that, why, and how SO has died, will die, and was dead right from the onset. – RegDwight Mar 24 '10 at 15:43
Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I held an onion to my ear, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones.
Outside of the dialectical form used in the Southern US, "y'all," has English ever had a plural "you"? If not, how does English get around using this form?
I read a part of a book about a man in a dystopia. Everyone was constantly entertained, but books were forbidden (I think). The mother of the main character was constantly listening to the radio. That's all I can remember.
I read recently that the proportion of the Russian government's budget that goes into the pockets of Putin's clan now amounts to a hundred billions dollars a year.
Well, the real problem takes place before the elections. There simply aren't that many great candidates who are allowed to participate. So you basically don't have that much of a choice. So the elections themselves don't actually have to be rigged. People actually vote for Putin.
We have Liberals, Socialists, and Extreme Right as the three largest at around 20% each; then Christian Dems, Liberal Dems, Greens, More extreme Socialists; all these are significant parties. Then we have three more very small parties.
"The most notable difference is the number of its heads: Most sources describe or depict three heads; others show it with two or even just one; a smaller number of sources show a variable number, sometimes as many as 50."
@JSB: We have always had many, many parties. It is just that the Far Right has become more prominent: the PVV (Wilders) now has nearly 20%, as you can see in the image, while its kind used to have more like 3%, the 1930s excepted.
@JSB: Okay. Far right means pro gay marriage and most liberal things; but very rude against Muslims and immigrants. It is basically against immigrants.
@JSB: I think that is right. Americans seem to be divided in two groups, where progressive, liberal thought is intimately linked to more distribution of welfare. That is not so here.
The thing is, many Americans are surprisingly liberal in their views, but if you tell them that word, "liberal", they go berserk and kill themselves or you or everyone.
@Reg: Hey that is funny; whenever I want to pinpoint people's inexact labelling, I often ask them "how is this clearer than merely saying something is "good"? just drop the adjective if you can't think of anything".
@Kos: Yeah that is my impression too.
@Kos: But how are progressives and (re)distribution not linked? I thought most Americans with liberal/progressive ideas were also in favour of more distribution generally that conservatives?
@JSBangs I think Michael Moore actually makes a point out of it in Sicko. Where he asks people whether they would do this or that to help their neighbors or just their fellow countrymen, and they all go YES!, but as soon as he draws the most obvious parallel to social welfare, they all go GET OFF MY PROPERTY.
@JSB: Yeah that sounds familiar. But is that so strange? They trust their own judgement as to what goals are worth supporting more than the government's.
@JSB: I think that is right. Americans seem to be divided in two groups, where progressive, liberal thought is intimately linked to more distribution of welfare. That is not so here.
@Kos: Right. That is a relative difference: here redistributionists want to increase taxes from 52% to 60%, whereas liberals want to reduce them to something like 45%, or even 40%, perhaps.
@JSBangs Why should my life depend on Bill Gates' preferences rather than on the government that I elected? I know, I know, in America that ain't even a question, since the people there are traditionally skeptical about the government as such. But that's not true of every government out there.
@RegDwight i think many people would argue that the selectiveness of private welfare is a feature, not a bug. personally i'm not necessarily against the state welfare state in generally, but i'm not a representative american.
in any case, americans (all of them) and europeans tend to have wildly divergent feelings about government in general
@Reg: True to an extent. But our Far Right currently supports the government, as it is in Denmark and probably elsewhere. That is, our current governing coalition has about 33% of votes, and needs Far Right to stay on. And yet Wilders still preaches distrust of government and whatever he considers "elite".
@Reg: Not quite true; it was very strong already when Fortuyn was still alive.
america was the world's first revolutionary state, and we have only ever had one government. so for us the national myth about democracy and overthrowing tyrants is fundamental to our national identity, for both the left and the right
so americans (left and right) tend to be extremely optimistic about the institution of democracy, the constitution, etc., but extremely antagonistic about anything that looks like tyranny. and taxation. remember that the revolutionary war was in large measure just a tax revolt, so protesting taxation is another thing written in the nat'l dna
i'm talking about mythology here, not reality. whether the US has actually been opposed to foreign tyrants is a whole different matter
@Cerberus absolutely. on the left and the right. the constitution is basically scripture for all political parties, and they differ only in their interpretation and emphases
the left is particular to the 1st amendment (freedom of expression), and the right to the 2nd amendmend (the right to bear arms)
@Colonization fans: I remember how annoying the King's taxes used to be in Colonization. I usually made sure I kept only a little bit of my most precious wares in my cities, so that I could dump my tobacco into the water if necessary to block his taxes.
@JSB: Yeah that is funny, how they revere the Constitution. Our Far Right wants to scratch lots of things from ours, such as laws against discrimination, and the monarchy. Over my dead body!
Oops we were discussing politics in a neutral way.
I was always amused that the Tea Party was basically founded on the revival of "no taxation without representation", even though all Americans do have representation
the tea party was (is) completely incoherent. they tried to oppose the new expansion of the welfare state (the health care reform) by defending the old expansion of the welfare state (medicare -- a form of state health care for the elderly)
The left says she holds power without being elected; the far right says she is of the elite, which is inherently evil. Both say she costs too much, though it is only, what, a hundred million a year? Nothing compared to the government's total expenditure.
i've heard it said of the UK, at least, that the royal family is actually a net profit, what with all of the tourism and merchandise that derives from them
The Queen is extremely well connected. She pays state visits all over the world, resulting in highly profitable contracts, and good publicity. It is very hard to estimate her total profit.
Outside of the dialectical form used in the Southern US, "y'all," has English ever had a plural "you"? If not, how does English get around using this form?
I read a sentence containing the word thy, but I cannot find the meaning of that word.
Is it old English, or is it still used?
I read a part of a book about a man in a dystopia. Everyone was constantly entertained, but books were forbidden (I think). The mother of the main character was constantly listening to the radio. That's all I can remember.
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…
English Language & Usage: Multi-Layer…