nfr....the cost to the taxpayer and the country for this wedding.

[sipwell]

Well-informed people will decide against capital punishment for it can never be 100 % proven someone actually committed the crime in question (the "what if" question) and the question remains whether we are entitled to decide to take away someone else's life. 



From royal wedding to capital punishment. Do I sense a revolution?

[finnster01]

From royal wedding to capital punishment. Do I sense a revolution?

:clap_hands: That had me chuckle Mr Sipwell. Very clever.  :045:

[ImperialWhite]

Well-informed people will decide against capital punishment for it can never be 100 % proven someone actually committed the crime in question (the "what if" question) and the question remains whether we are entitled to decide to take away someone else's life. 



From royal wedding to capital punishment. Do I sense a revolution?

A well-informed electorate? Good luck finding one of those.

:011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011:
:011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011:
:011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011:
:011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011: :011:

[sipwell]

Well-informed people will decide against capital punishment for it can never be 100 % proven someone actually committed the crime in question (the "what if" question) and the question remains whether we are entitled to decide to take away someone else's life. 



From royal wedding to capital punishment. Do I sense a revolution?

A well-informed electorate? Good luck finding one of those.

You should fall in halfway the discussion. Read page 3 :P

[AlFayedsChequebook]

Well-informed people will decide against capital punishment for it can never be 100 % proven someone actually committed the crime in question (the "what if" question) and the question remains whether we are entitled to decide to take away someone else's life. 



From royal wedding to capital punishment. Do I sense a revolution?

:hook: Does that mean Finnster is not well-informed?  :hook:

I laughed when during the recent student protests, the 'royals' were poked with a stick and someone shouted 'off with their heads'

[sipwell]

Well-informed people will decide against capital punishment for it can never be 100 % proven someone actually committed the crime in question (the "what if" question) and the question remains whether we are entitled to decide to take away someone else's life. 



From royal wedding to capital punishment. Do I sense a revolution?

:hook: Does that mean Finnster is not well-informed?  :hook:

I laughed when during the recent student protests, the 'royals' were poked with a stick and someone shouted 'off with their heads'

It is no shame not to be well-informed. I can think of a million of topics on which I am not well-informed and I act on my gut feeling or my preconceived opinions. The score line of Fulham's game against Bolton for instance :D

[AlFayedsChequebook]

Well-informed people will decide against capital punishment for it can never be 100 % proven someone actually committed the crime in question (the "what if" question) and the question remains whether we are entitled to decide to take away someone else's life. 



From royal wedding to capital punishment. Do I sense a revolution?

:hook: Does that mean Finnster is not well-informed?  :hook:

I laughed when during the recent student protests, the 'royals' were poked with a stick and someone shouted 'off with their heads'

It is no shame not to be well-informed. I can think of a million of topics on which I am not well-informed and I act on my gut feeling or my preconceived opinions. The score line of Fulham's game against Bolton for instance :D

Have you ever ended an argument with 'you are wrong because you are not well-informed enough'? Doesnt seem to go down to well when I have tried it.... :005:

[finnster01]

Must say despite several head explosions attempting to hang with the peloton, this is a very impressive thread written by some very smart people.

Lots of  :clap_hands: to Mr AFC, Mr Sipwell, and Mr IW (plus the Mods for letting it evolve).

Something like this could never happen on the offal.

[sipwell]

Well-informed people will decide against capital punishment for it can never be 100 % proven someone actually committed the crime in question (the "what if" question) and the question remains whether we are entitled to decide to take away someone else's life. 



From royal wedding to capital punishment. Do I sense a revolution?

:hook: Does that mean Finnster is not well-informed?  :hook:

I laughed when during the recent student protests, the 'royals' were poked with a stick and someone shouted 'off with their heads'

It is no shame not to be well-informed. I can think of a million of topics on which I am not well-informed and I act on my gut feeling or my preconceived opinions. The score line of Fulham's game against Bolton for instance :D

Have you ever ended an argument with 'you are wrong because you are not well-informed enough'? Doesnt seem to go down to well when I have tried it.... :005:

I teach at uni so: often. . :) If I hear someone saying absolute rubbish, (s)he can go and read up and come back and give me a proper answer.
Also, I consider it essential to make people well-informed (see my statements about the royal family and such). If someone, on the basis of that lecture, still decides to consider the royal family to be wasters of money, then they are not wrong for they made that call based on information ;-)

[TheDaddy]

Sorry guys im lost ! who asked for sausages , mushrooms,beans and a fried slice ?


interesting reading gents interesting  :54:

[RidgeRider]

Must say despite several head explosions attempting to hang with the peloton, this is a very impressive thread written by some very smart people.

Lots of  :clap_hands: to Mr AFC, Mr Sipwell, and Mr IW (plus the Mods for letting it evolve).

Something like this could never happen on the offal.

Mr. Finn, when I awoke this morning and saw this thread had grown to 5 pages I went "holy crap, I am going to have to read 3 pages of political rants and shut this thing down".

I think the fear we have always had is the discussion gets personal in political matters, so we have not allowed things to really get started in the past but the Mods have been giving more rope to these types of discussions over the past few months because beyond Fulham Football Club, RESPECT is what this board is all about. Thanks for saying as much and loved your reference to the peloton! Very clever.

Very interesting thread indeed.

[duffbeer]

I teach at uni so: often. . :) If I hear someone saying absolute rubbish, (s)he can go and read up and come back and give me a proper answer.
Also, I consider it essential to make people well-informed (see my statements about the royal family and such).

then perhaps you should heed your own advice before you say things like this:

People in democracies tend to vote against their own best interest (look at presidential elections in the US, where the poor vote for Republicans for instance).  :)

[sipwell]

I teach at uni so: often. . :) If I hear someone saying absolute rubbish, (s)he can go and read up and come back and give me a proper answer.
Also, I consider it essential to make people well-informed (see my statements about the royal family and such).

then perhaps you should heed your own advice before you say things like this:

People in democracies tend to vote against their own best interest (look at presidential elections in the US, where the poor vote for Republicans for instance).  :)

There is a considerable amount of research supporting this claim. Latinos voting for political parties which basically want to oust their families, poor people voting for republicans even though they want to limit health care, etc.
The point is that many people get, because of their Christian upbringing, confused and vote for the most Christian politician (or at least the one that comes close) because of "values". The American constitution however already guarantees those Christian rights. Politicians barely make policy directly related to values, a few areas excluded. The morals in the latter areas however do not diverge that much.
Take abortion as an example: people who are pro-abortion are not necessarily against life, nor do they think that abortion should be allowed always and everywhere. They merely state that, given certain circumstances, people should be allowed to have a legal abortion. The requirements need to be very strictly enforced and everything should be done to never have to do one single abortion (sex education, potentially use of condoms, abstinence, etc.). Research on that matter for instance shows that people are, when given a fee, will abstain from sex or use a condom. If people go into a contract, they will sit through their contract (and get the fee). Policy could hence be devised which takes these elements into account. The end goal: as limited number of abortions as possible, as strictly controlled as possible.

[ImperialWhite]

AFC - like the abolishment of capital punishment you mean? I shudder to think what we'd be doing to criminals if we were allowed to vote on it.

Precisely - at what point is it a good idea to take decision making away from the people?

I think I may already know the response though...

Incidentally, aren't you hoisted by your own democratic petard with regards to the UK and the monarchy; we'd vote to keep the monarchy every day of the week wouldn't we? (as far as I'm aware, Britain has never had any strong republican feelings).

[Rambling_Syd_Rumpo]

AFC - like the abolishment of capital punishment you mean? I shudder to think what we'd be doing to criminals if we were allowed to vote on it.

Precisely - at what point is it a good idea to take decision making away from the people?

I think I may already know the response though...

Incidentally, aren't you hoisted by your own democratic petard with regards to the UK and the monarchy; we'd vote to keep the monarchy every day of the week wouldn't we? (as far as I'm aware, Britain has never had any strong republican feelings).

depends where your from IW,I'm a Northerner and feel no connection to the "Royal family" whatsoever,the north south divide is alive and well over this and other issues

[duffbeer]

I teach at uni so: often. . :) If I hear someone saying absolute rubbish, (s)he can go and read up and come back and give me a proper answer.
Also, I consider it essential to make people well-informed (see my statements about the royal family and such).

then perhaps you should heed your own advice before you say things like this:

People in democracies tend to vote against their own best interest (look at presidential elections in the US, where the poor vote for Republicans for instance).  :)

There is a considerable amount of research supporting this claim. Latinos voting for political parties which basically want to oust their families, poor people voting for republicans even though they want to limit health care, etc.
The point is that many people get, because of their Christian upbringing, confused and vote for the most Christian politician (or at least the one that comes close) because of "values". The American constitution however already guarantees those Christian rights. Politicians barely make policy directly related to values, a few areas excluded. The morals in the latter areas however do not diverge that much.
Take abortion as an example: people who are pro-abortion are not necessarily against life, nor do they think that abortion should be allowed always and everywhere. They merely state that, given certain circumstances, people should be allowed to have a legal abortion. The requirements need to be very strictly enforced and everything should be done to never have to do one single abortion (sex education, potentially use of condoms, abstinence, etc.). Research on that matter for instance shows that people are, when given a fee, will abstain from sex or use a condom. If people go into a contract, they will sit through their contract (and get the fee). Policy could hence be devised which takes these elements into account. The end goal: as limited number of abortions as possible, as strictly controlled as possible.

I don't  understand your claim that poor people vote republican.  There is no requirement to list your income when you register to vote.   You could perhaps equate education level to income, but there also is no requirement to list your education level when you register to vote.   Nor is there any requirement to list your religious, if any, affiliation.  Such things would all be against the law.  So I have to wonder how you come to your conclusions, especially since any attempts that I've seen to get a handle on such demographics show that the majority of "poor" people vote democrat.  

As for

Latinos voting for political parties which basically want to oust their families

I assume this is a reference to illegal immigration from Mexico.  First of all, only US citizens are allowed to vote so any latinos that do vote republican arent exactly voting to have their family ousted.  It is also a giant simplification to equate voting republican to deporting illegal immigrants from the country.  Utah is the most republican (and religious) state in the country and it happens to have the most progressive laws for dealing with illegal immigrants.  The Bush administration (republican) fought very hard for illegal immigration reform that included amnesty for current illegals so again that is hardly "ousting".   Finally, the majority of hispanics that register with a political party, register as democrats not republicans.

As for:

poor people voting for republicans even though they want to limit health care

Another enormous simplification of the issue.  Republicans had their own plans to reform healthcare in the US so I'd like to understand where you get "limit" from.  In fact one of the Republican concerns over Obama's plan was healthcare rationing and "death"  panels.  In other words, concerns about limiting healthcare.  The real debate on the healthcare issue came down to how to best control skyrocketing costs and the constitutionality of the plan that finally passed.  Obama's plan includes a requirement to purchase healthcare and a fine for non-compliance.  It is reasonable that a poor but healthy man in his 20's might vote against such a requirement (assuming healthcare was the only issue of many that he was considering when he cast his vote).

As for:

The point is that many people get, because of their Christian upbringing, confused and vote for the most Christian politician

Blaming a christian upbringing on being confused kind of speaks for itself in terms of tolerance and understanding doesn't it?  Especially in light of the points I made above about the state of Utah. I  myself have not been to church since I was a teenager, and I have never taken my children to church, but I do teach them to practice tolerance and a respect for the beliefs of others.  

[sipwell]

@ Duff: I don't want to turn this into a political thread. I just say what I know from the scientific literature...