5 Dead in College Shooting...

[Electrophile]

We have a crazy system of government? Who said this.....an American? Oh wait, they're not an American? Then why are they talking about shit they don't know? I personally don't think Bush should have been "elected" in 2000, but he was and it's now 2008 and he's almost gone. So there's no sense in bringing it up like it's a salient point to anything. Even if you want to say that election was screwed up, that's one in what......200+ years? Maybe there's been a couple of others in the 1800s.....but you speak as though no other country has experienced election drama.

Gainsbarre, do the Americans here a favor and quit pontificating about our country like you have the vaguest idea what it's all about. You don't, and it shows and it's really embarrassing for you.

[Gainsbarre]

Gainsbarre, do the Americans here a favor and quit pontificating about our country like you have the vaguest idea what it's all about. You don't, and it shows and it's really embarrassing for you.

I could explain to you why the westminster system under a constitutional monarchy is a form of government superior to yours, but if I did that, I'm sure you'd accuse me of spitting on the stars and stripes, and hell, of probably being a terrorist as well...

Although its cute when you say: "do the Americans here a favor and quit pontificating about our country like you have the vaguest idea what it's all about."

I have a feeling the Iraqis are thinking the exact same thing about you guys... But it's never stopped you in telling other countries how they should run themselves.

Being an outsider, i can probably tell you things about your country that you are far too patriotic to notice

But being outsider, you wouldn't like me to do that. You'd prefer it if I kept to my own business. Maybe you'll remember that next time you're gesticulating at other countries over how to organise themselves.

[Del Zeppnile]

I could explain to you why the westminster system under a constitutional monarchy is a form of government superior to yours, but if I did that, I'm sure you'd accuse me of spitting on the stars and stripes, and hell, of probably being a terrorist as well...

The very fact that the term 'monarchy' is included makes it a fucking joke. We hated your "divine rights of kings" bullshit and we tossed them out. Even the French had the good taste to cut the heads off of theirs.

Austrailia continued to be a governed outpost of Britian with no real rights other than the charity extended to them at the whim of their overlords. You were a fucking penal colony for shit sake! The British actually thought more of the United States even after our revolution than they did of your country.

Although its cute when you say: "do the Americans here a favor and quit pontificating about our country like you have the vaguest idea what it's all about."

I have a feeling the Iraqis are thinking the exact same thing about you guys... But it's never stopped you in telling other countries how they should run themselves.

And it never stopped the British on telling you how to run your affairs even into the 20th century did it? Face it, Austrailia is like Puerto Rico but with better beer.

Being an outsider, i can probably tell you things about your country that you are far too patriotic to notice

But being outsider, you wouldn't like me to do that. You'd prefer it if I kept to my own business. Maybe you'll remember that next time you're gesticulating at other countries over how to organise themselves.

Big talk coming from one of Britian's lap dogs. But don't let me rain on your parade there mate!

[wanna be drummer]

I could explain to you why the westminster system under a constitutional monarchy is a form of government superior to yours, but if I did that, I'm sure you'd accuse me of spitting on the stars and stripes, and hell, of probably being a terrorist as well...

Although its cute when you say: "do the Americans here a favor and quit pontificating about our country like you have the vaguest idea what it's all about."

Do you have any idea how arroant you sound? Please, do tell on how your government is superior to all models

I have a feeling the Iraqis are thinking the exact same thing about you guys... But it's never stopped you in telling other countries how they should run themselves

You may be Australian, but you belong to England my friend. And England isn't exactly a stranger when it comes to ordering countries around. Hell, theyre why your "superior" government exists. Everything you have is because of England, and England has a hell of a lot more skeletons than America

Being an outsider, i can probably tell you things about your country that you are far too patriotic to notice

Being an outsider, I can tell you how much your country sucks

But being outsider, you wouldn't like me to do that. You'd prefer it if I kept to my own business. Maybe you'll remember that next time you're gesticulating at other countries over how to organise themselves.

I have no problem in someone criticizing America. My problem comes when it is fairly obvious the speaker has little to no experience on the subject. For example, you didn't even know about America's gun laws nor its licensing laws. Yet you continued on the subject as if you had a great idea on how the system here works.

Tell me, is that not idiotic?

[Hermit]

Gainesbarre,.. this right to bear arms supporting, America-loving American is willing to acknowledge that you've made some very good points and that your observations about American culture and government are.. by and large.. reasonable and well within the realm of accurate. ..enough so to warrant your points being intelligently debated/discussed rather than being summarily dismissed on bogus, defensiveness-based charges of ignorance, arrogance, and pontification.

Imho it's a sign of ignorance to think that someone has to be a member of a certain culture to be able to make insightful observations and comments about that culture. In fact, its more likely the case that those who are immersed in the culture are the one's who have the least objective pov and who have a very biased, skewed pov about their culture.

I wonder how many of my fellow Americans (particularly those who summarily dismiss your observations about American culture) have actually ever been a member of Iraqi/middle east culture. Probably none. And yet that doesn't seem to stop them from commenting about Iraqi/middle east culture based on their outsider observations, does it?

Do I agree with everything you've said? No. But you're making some good points and

you're holding your ground well in the debate. Keep up the good work, friend.

~H

PS.. If the shit hits the fan,.. I got yer back, brother.

[wanna be drummer]

Have a good day today Hermit? You've been even jollier than usual today buddy

[Hermit]

Have a good day today Hermit? You've been even jollier than usual today buddy

well,.. lets see..

I woke up with a stiffie (neck, that is) and a migraine today.

I puked my guts out a couple hours later.

I eventually managed to keep down some medication and the migraine

subsided enough for me to take a nap.. using an ice pack as a pillow.

I got up from my nap, dropped a quick post or two here

at the boards, and then went to a massage appointment.

The massage was nice.. but my neck is still aching like a sonofabitch.

So yeah,.. I'm jolly as St. fucking Nick, brother.

Thats all true, btw.

but in the big scheme of things,.. it aint no thing.

Life is good, muh-man.. life is good.

[Electrophile]

I don't comment on Iraqi or Middle Eastern culture. Why would I, I'm neither.

[Hermit]

I don't comment on Iraqi or Middle Eastern culture. Why would I, I'm neither.

Just because you're not Iraqi/middle eastern, you wouldn't ever comment on

aspects of Iraqi/middle eastern culture, eh? Not even.. oh, say.. Sharia Law?

I'd think any intelligent person would be able to make observations of, form

opinions about, and express comments about cultures other than their own.

Why wouldn't they/you?

[Electrophile]

I was talking about a specific kind of comments, not comments in general. More along the lines of the comments Gainsbarre was making about American culture. I don't know shit about Middle Eastern culture, so I don't start talking about it like I do. That's what I meant. All copacetic now?

[Hermit]

I was talking about a specific kind of comments, not comments in general. More along the lines of the comments Gainsbarre was making about American culture. I don't know shit about Middle Eastern culture, so I don't start talking about it like I do. That's what I meant. All copacetic now?

If you're saying you don't know shit about Sharia Law as it pertains to Iraqi/middle

eastern culture, then yeah I suppose you probably shouldn't comment on it. But that doesn't mean Gainesbarre shouldn't comment about America's gun culture and form of government. There's lots of information available to him about both, and he may well know enough about both to make reasonable comments about them. If he knows so little, and if his comments are so blatantly misguided (as you seem to infer), then I'd think you'd have no problem debunking or refuting his assertions. Why not do that rather than merely dismiss him out of hand simply because he's not an American?

[Electrophile]

Because I'm a smart-ass. Catch on.

[Hermit]

Because I'm a smart-ass. Catch on.

A one-trick donkey, eh? Ok, I get it.

fyi.. you can improve your smart-ass schtick by adding.. humor.

..which is noticeably absent in your last several posts in this thread.

[Del Zeppnile]

If you're saying you don't know shit about Sharia Law as it pertains to Iraqi/middle

eastern culture, then yeah I suppose you probably shouldn't comment on it. But that doesn't mean Gainesbarre shouldn't comment about America's gun culture and form of government. There's lots of information available to him about both, and he may well know enough about both to make reasonable comments about them. If he knows so little, and if his comments are so blatantly misguided (as you seem to infer), then I'd think you'd have no problem debunking or refuting his assertions. Why not do that rather than merely dismiss him out of hand simply because he's not an American?

Jumping in here..

Don't you think his initial comments (which really come of as bashing in their tone) were a bit over the top? Gainesbore's response to the shootings is a typical 'conditioned response' from someone who has no understanding of the underlying issues in this type of event be they either criminal or psychological. His response sounds just like I would expect from someone who has based his opinions mainly on reports in the media from his country about so called American "gun culture" and violence. His opinions fail to even consider the fact that the vast majority of gun ownership is responsible and moral. And not to mention perfectly legal. But rather than attempt to understand the issues of gun rights in this country, Gainesbore decided to attack Americans in general as being "cowboys" and lovers of violence. Gainesbore even goes so far as to throw in some choice crap about the Iraq war and the United States military and other things that have nothing to do with this incident in any way. Gainesbore obviously has an axe to grind with the U.S. in general, and he really has no interest in thoughtful discussion.

I do not dismiss him because he is not American. I dismiss his comments becuase they are those of a fucktard assclown troll.

[Hermit]

Jumping in here..

Don't you think his initial comments (which really come of as bashing in their tone) were a bit over the top? Gainesbore's response to the shootings is a typical 'conditioned response' from someone who has no understanding of the underlying issues in this type of event be they either criminal or psychological. His response sounds just like I would expect from someone who has based his opinions mainly on reports in the media from his country about so called American "gun culture" and violence. His opinions fail to even consider the fact that the vast majority of gun ownership is responsible and moral. And not to mention perfectly legal. But rather than attempt to understand the issues of gun rights in this country, Gainesbore decided to attack Americans in general as being "cowboys" and lovers of violence. Gainesbore even goes so far as to throw in some choice crap about the Iraq war and the United States military and other things that have nothing to do with this incident in any way. Gainesbore obviously has an axe to grind with the U.S. in general, and he really has no interest in thoughtful discussion.

I do not dismiss him because he is not American. I dismiss his comments becuase they are those of a fucktard assclown troll.

Your denial of the gun culture in America.. and of a cowboys and Indians like mentality of many Americans.. is a predictable "conditioned response" to be expected from an NRA-certified whack job like yourself, Delberto. I disagree with your assessments of Gainebarre's posts. While I certainly don't agree with everything he's said, I have found his posts to have been thoughtful and articulate and I think he's made some good points. Just because he's been somewhat critical of America, that doesn't necessarily mean he has an axe to grind. However, I wouldn't blame him if he did; most of the world has an axe to grind with America these days, and for good reason. You're just not able to tolerate any criticism of America, no matter how well-founded it might be, bud. America has some wonderful qualities, thats for damn sure, but it sure as shit has some warts too, and even a malignant cancer or two. But you refuse to acknowledge the warts and cancers; instead you choose to cling to your grandiose ideas of American impeccability. But hey, one of the great things about America is that you're free to choose to believe what you want, bro,.. no matter how self-deluded those beliefs may be. ..right?

If Gainesbarre's pov's warrant summary dismissal, yours do

too.. doubly so.. you self-deluded fucktard assclown gun nut.

This guy is your hero, aint he?

..or is it this guy?..

..or this one?

..or maybe these guys, eh?

[Del Zeppnile]

Your denial of the gun culture in America.. and of a cowboys and Indians like mentality of many Americans.. is a predictable "conditioned response" to be expected from an NRA-certified whack job like yourself, Delberto.

I joined the NRA back in the 90's during the Clinton/Reno era as a result of this photo:

I actually joined the very next day and even despite the fact that for many years I had disagreed with some of the NRA's positions. But I guess I grew sick and tired of the heavy handed way that the government had dealt with the situation in Miami over the Elian Gonzalez immigration, and also Waco Texas and Ruby Ridge. At this point I believe the NRA (despite some problems) is still the best way to ensure that we keep government honest. Our founding fathers were wise to ensure that individuals had the right to be armed.

I disagree with your assessments of Gainebarre's posts. While I certainly don't agree with everything he's said, I have found his posts to have been thoughtful and articulate and I think he's made some good points. Just because he's been somewhat critical of America, that doesn't necessarily mean he has an axe to grind.

Gainsbore is a pimp. He could have never outfought Old Scratch.

This guy is your hero, aint he?

..or is it this guy?..

..or this one?

You forgot this guy

[Gainsbarre]

The very fact that the term 'monarchy' is included makes it a fucking joke. We hated your "divine rights of kings" bullshit and we tossed them out. Even the French had the good taste to cut the heads off of theirs.

Well I mean that demonstrates that you don't know a lot about history. The French moved to a republic because at that time The French Monarchy was an autocracy, whereas at the same time the British Monarchy was a constitutional monarchy subjected to approval by parliament.

Do you have any idea how arroant you sound? Please, do tell on how your government is superior to all models

Okay, I'll tell you. Not that it'll make much difference of course.

Democracy is something that develops over a long period of time. Usually in a slow transition from a type of dictatorship. Take Iraq for example. The Bush Administration wrongly believed that democracy is a notion that is easily understood and embraced by people all over the world, which is not true. It's only a concept that develops over generations. Russia is a perfect example of this, where up until the 1990s, Russia had never experienced a political democracy, and successive generations grew up living under top-down parochial form of government.

This affects the way people live because they learn to distance themselves from politics, and also not to talk about politics because generally talking about in the past could lead to arrest or personal difficulties.

So democracy involves a full participation of people in the political debate. In previously dictatorial countries, people will not want to have anything to do with Politics even if they're governments have changed and become democratic, because it is instilled in them to avoid it.

Look at Russia, Putin enjoys an 80% approval rate even though he's quite dictatorial. This is evidence that Russians have not fully embraced the concept of their involvement in democracy.

I knew people who had lived in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, and it would be so hard to get them to say anything at all about Hitler or Stalin because they learned back in those days that survival depended on them not saying a word. Even 50 years after, on the rare occasions they would talk about it, they would close all the doors and windows and drag you into a corner and speak in hushed tones. That fear never left them.

Again, the point of me saying that is to highlight the fact that democracy only works when the public have full involvement in the political debate and direction of the country.

Now Britain has developed Democracy over hundreds of years. The reason why Napoleon's anti-royalist cries had little effect in Britain, is because Britain enjoyed a much greater level of freedom of speech and greater political involvement from the public than anywhere else in Europe. Britain by this time also had a constitutional Monarchy which meant that the monarchy could only exist by an act of Parliament, meaning that, if it wanted to, Parliament could abolish the Monarchy.

By this time in British history, there was no such thing as the divine right of kings. The last King of Britain who subscribed to this theory was King Charles the First who was dethroned and be-headed in 1649 because he believed in the divine right.

So why, in my opinion, is the Constitutional Monarchy the best form of Government?

Well, it became quite apparent during the Iraq war why.

The biggest mistake in the organisation of Government in America is that your President should not be your head of state.

The person who is in charge of the government and the person who is the symbolic head of the country should be two different people.

Other countries, that are Republic, have this set up. Israel has a President, but the head of the government is a Prime Minister. It's the same situation in Italy as well as France.

But why do i prefer a Constitutional Monarchy over a Republican model? Well, very crucially because the Head Of State needs to be a very visible, honorific but politically absent role.

This is not only the situation you have in britain, but also in Spain, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway...

Let me explain this better:

In 2003, when George Bush made the decision to go to war with Iraq, people were in support of it and other people were against it. Then when America actually sent troops into Iraq, the debate kept continuing. However, the people who didn't agree with the decision were being silenced...

The people who protested the war were being labelled as un-patriotic because they weren't supporting the president in a time of war. The common answer was that "now we have gone to war, the debate has to stop and everyone must now support the president". This shuts down democracy, because in a democracy nothing can be sacred or not discussed, everything must be open for discussion by the people.

To be accused of un-patriotism because you do not support partisan political policy by a President who represents only one political ideology, and who is also head of state, is not good for democracy. The person who implements governmental and political policy should never be above discussion and their policy should never be above discussion. That's what was happening when the US was getting involved in Iraq. Discussions on the President's actions were being shut down.

This situation is different under a constitutional Monarchy. Under a constitutional monarchy, the King or Queen is the head and supreme symbol of the country. But the King or Queen does not have political power and does not involve him or herself in political discussion. The person who implements policy and political direction is the Prime Minister.

Under this situation, it allows greater freedom in democracy, because the public can put their support beind the King or Queen or show their level of patriotism or nationalism by fully supporting the Monarchy. If you're in Britain, you can get your little Union Jack flag and stand outside Buckingham Palace and wave your flag like mad to show how proud you are to be British and how much you support The Queen...

BUT...

By the same token, you can question or criticise the policy or actions of the Prime Minister and the Goverment without being accused of being unpatriotic.

You can stand up for your democratic right to have your say and to question the Government and criticise the Government and not be accused of unpatriotism because you as a citizen pledge your allegiance to the King or Queen and -not- to the Prime Minister or the President

[yahyoubetcha]

A fine example of the British political system:

King Arthur: Old woman.

Dennis: Man.

King Arthur: Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?

Dennis: I'm 37.

King Arthur: What?

Dennis: I'm 37. I'm not old.

King Arthur: Well I can't just call you "man".

Dennis: Well you could say "Dennis".

King Arthur: I didn't know you were called Dennis.

Dennis: Well you didn't bother to find out did you?

King Arthur: I did say sorry about the "old woman", but from behind you looked...

Dennis: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior.

King Arthur: Well I am king.

Dennis: Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

King Arthur: I am your king.

Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.

King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.

Woman: Well how'd you become king then?

[Angelic music plays... ]

King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.

Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Dennis: Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

King Arthur: Bloody peasant!

Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?

But seriously, on the topic of gun control, in Canada we have a fairly strict form of gun control but does anyone remember the University of Montreal shootings in 1989? 14 dead. What good did gun control do us then?? And what about the gassing on the subway in Tokyo. 12 dead. Japan has the toughest gun control laws in the world, don't they? But it didn't help them as someone found a way around it. If someone wants to kill, I think they will find a way.

[Hermit]

You forgot this guy

A guy who assassinated a POTUS is one of yours heros?

I would've thought this guy maybe..

<--- J.R.

..but not the murderer of a POTUS.

Aw well,.. in America you're free to take as a hero whomever

you want, Del. ..even someone who assassinated the president.

[wanna be drummer]

Gainsbarre, as fun as that was to read, I still don't buy into it at all. In the English system, you have a Parliament, a Prime Minister, a Monarch, and you have a court system.

In the English model, the Prime Minister is not elected by the people, but by the reigning party in Parliament. The POTUS is elected by electoral delegates who are voted by the people. I prefer the latter.

In England, the Parliament is split into two group, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. However, it is the House of Commons that dominates Parliament. The House of Lords is mostly traditional and doesn't hold a whole hell of a lot of political power, like the English Monarch. In this way, a party in England must hold the House of Commons for power. By getting a hold of the HOC, they get the Prime Minister. It's a two for one deal. I don't like that idea very much. In America, our Congress is also split into two groups, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both are equally powerful and thus, it's harder to dominate the legislature branch of America. I prefer our method. Also, these Congressmen, once in office, can vote however they wish to. They are not obliged to vote one way or the other because the party wants them to. They are free to vote however they see fit. In England, the political parties give members of their party the money to run campaigns when they are up for reelection. If the politician does not vote along party lines, they simply won't give them money for their election, which effectively ends their run in Parliament. Our Congressmen are not as whipped as you're Parliament members.

Another thing I like about our model is the fact that we have one leader, something you apparently do not like. Our symbolic Head of State is the President. Our Head of Government is technically the President also. The first thing I love: we don't have to pay the symbolic head of government (your monarh) millions of dollars in tax dollars...How much money do Monarchs rake in I wonder? But thats only a minor issue. I like the idea that we have a leader who is not just symbolic, but holds political power. The English Monarch is useless. Yeah, they lead their nation, but they have almost zero say in what goes on in Parliament, and they have to appear as though they stand behind the Prime Minister all the time. So no matter what they believe, they need to stand firm behind the real English power, the Prime Minister.

The American Republic system is made so that we have that series of checks and balances. It may not be perfect, but does a damn good job. Originally, the Founding Fathers had no idea that the Supreme Court would play such a large role in shaping American laws. This is evident in the fact that the Supreme Court has no power to back up their decision. They lay down their decision and Congress passes a new law or what have you, but the Court doesn't have a police system where they can physically bring someone to trial for a crime against their policies. Also, the Court has the ability to tell Congress or the President that it is doing something unconstitutional and must stop.

The English Supreme Court system is a group of courts. Since England doesn't have a written constitution, nothing the Parliament does can be unconstitutional.

I love our checks and balances. I do not like the political uselessness of the English Head of State or the House of Lords, I do not like the Party whips in Parliament, I do not like how the Prime Minister essentially runs the country however he/she sees fit, etc. I could keep going.

And finally, I do not like soccer or rugby...

Anywho, I simply prefer the American Republic than the English Parliamentary Monarchy. Can I say which is better for a fact? Hell no. Can I have an opinion on which is better? Yes, gladly.

I hope we learned something from this, I know I did. Until next time kids, "what do we always say?

DON'T. GET. ELIMINATED!!!!!!!!"

~MXC

[Gainsbarre]

Gainsbarre, as fun as that was to read, I still don't buy into it at all. In the English system, you have a Parliament, a Prime Minister, a Monarch, and you have a court system.

In the English model, the Prime Minister is not elected by the people, but by the reigning party in Parliament. The POTUS is elected by electoral delegates who are voted by the people. I prefer the latter.

In England, the Parliament is split into two group, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. However, it is the House of Commons that dominates Parliament. The House of Lords is mostly traditional and doesn't hold a whole hell of a lot of political power, like the English Monarch. In this way, a party in England must hold the House of Commons for power. By getting a hold of the HOC, they get the Prime Minister. It's a two for one deal. I don't like that idea very much. In America, our Congress is also split into two groups, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both are equally powerful and thus, it's harder to dominate the legislature branch of America. I prefer our method. Also, these Congressmen, once in office, can vote however they wish to. They are not obliged to vote one way or the other because the party wants them to. They are free to vote however they see fit. In England, the political parties give members of their party the money to run campaigns when they are up for reelection. If the politician does not vote along party lines, they simply won't give them money for their election, which effectively ends their run in Parliament. Our Congressmen are not as whipped as you're Parliament members.

Another thing I like about our model is the fact that we have one leader, something you apparently do not like. Our symbolic Head of State is the President. Our Head of Government is technically the President also. The first thing I love: we don't have to pay the symbolic head of government (your monarh) millions of dollars in tax dollars...How much money do Monarchs rake in I wonder? But thats only a minor issue. I like the idea that we have a leader who is not just symbolic, but holds political power. The English Monarch is useless. Yeah, they lead their nation, but they have almost zero say in what goes on in Parliament, and they have to appear as though they stand behind the Prime Minister all the time. So no matter what they believe, they need to stand firm behind the real English power, the Prime Minister.

The American Republic system is made so that we have that series of checks and balances. It may not be perfect, but does a damn good job. Originally, the Founding Fathers had no idea that the Supreme Court would play such a large role in shaping American laws. This is evident in the fact that the Supreme Court has no power to back up their decision. They lay down their decision and Congress passes a new law or what have you, but the Court doesn't have a police system where they can physically bring someone to trial for a crime against their policies. Also, the Court has the ability to tell Congress or the President that it is doing something unconstitutional and must stop.

The English Supreme Court system is a group of courts. Since England doesn't have a written constitution, nothing the Parliament does can be unconstitutional.

I love our checks and balances. I do not like the political uselessness of the English Head of State or the House of Lords, I do not like the Party whips in Parliament, I do not like how the Prime Minister essentially runs the country however he/she sees fit, etc. I could keep going.

Yes in the Westminster System, the Party elects its leader. But then the party isn't stupid enough to elect a leader the public don't want, because if the public don't like the leader, then come election time the sitting members will lose their seats, so it is in their interests to elect a leader that the public will approve of...

In the British system, yes the House of Lords can be ineffectual, however in the Australian version, we have a Senate that is not ineffectual, and The Senate decides whether or not it'll pass the goverment's bills.

In America your President has a veto power, which does not happen in Australia. If the Senate votes and passes something, then it is law.

The Monarch is not useless as it is a symbol and figure-head for the country. If you lived in Britain you would understand the role the Queen plays in the country and how she represents the country.

However, the Head of State and the Head of Goverment must be two seperate people, and the Head of State must not be involved in policy-making, as having that situation would result, if the two did not get on, in continued stale-mate and two centres of governmental power...

Again I state it is not good for democracy if your head of state also wields full political power...

The Queen is paid by a thing called The Civil List, which amounts to a few million pounds a year. From this Civil List the Queen must pay her own bills and house-keeping money, along with staff wages. I guarantee you the amount of money spent on The Queen each year would not be too different from the amount of money spent each year looking after your President... The Queen's estates also generate money from agriculture that go to paying her bills.

The American President, because of his veto power, has more influence and control over Goverment than a westminster system Prime Minister.

A westminster system goverment is only elected for a 3 year term, so it is prudent for them to implement good policy as they do not have a long time to establish themselves in office before the next election. Any foolishness is quickly dealt with.

Look at Margaret Thatcher for example, PM of Britain. She wanted to introduce the Poll Tax in Britain which the public was dead against. This public disapproval resulted in Thatcher being voted out of office by her party over their concerns of public disapproval.

The Westminster System also has something that the American system doesn't have: Question Time in parliament.

Everyday, when parliament is sitting, the Prime Minister (and other ministers) must take and answer questions from the opposition parties. Whatever question they are asked they must answer. Now I have never seen George W Bush do that... I've never seen him have to sit in a room for 12 days and answer all questions put to him by the democrats...

Question Time is a crucial check placed on the Prime Minister and his or her government. They have to answer those questions put to them by any member of Parliament.

[Del Zeppnile]

Well I mean that demonstrates that you don't know a lot about history. The French moved to a republic because at that time The French Monarchy was an autocracy, whereas at the same time the British Monarchy was a constitutional monarchy subjected to approval by parliament.

So you are saying the French should have just hung in there a bit longer and waited for the French autocracy to evolve into constitutional monarchy instead? You are missing the whole point. Liberty is not something that government portions out to the people in it's own good time. Liberty is a natural right that is independent of government. Government is best when it embraces that fact and then derives it's power from the people you simpleton loyalist stooge. Bottom to top, not top to bottom.

Okay, I'll tell you. Not that it'll make much difference of course.

Democracy is something that develops over a long period of time. Usually in a slow transition from a type of dictatorship.

(you said some other things about the history of your constitution monarchy but I can best sum that part up as "blah, blah, blah, blah....)

Really? A long slow transition.

April 14, 1775 - Massachusetts Governor Gage is secretly ordered by the British to enforce the Coercive Acts and suppress "open rebellion" among colonists by using all necessary force.

April 18, 1775 - General Gage orders 700 British soldiers to Concord to destroy the colonists' weapons depot.

That night, Paul Revere and William Dawes are sent from Boston to warn colonists. Revere reaches Lexington about midnight and warns Sam Adams and John Hancock who are hiding out there.

At dawn on April 19 about 70 armed Massachusetts militiamen stand face to face on Lexington Green with the British advance guard. An unordered 'shot heard around the world' begins the American Revolution. A volley of British muskets followed by a charge with bayonets leaves eight Americans dead and ten wounded. The British regroup and head for the depot in Concord, destroying the colonists' weapons and supplies. At the North Bridge in Concord, a British platoon is attacked by militiamen, with 14 casualties.

British forces then begin a long retreat from Lexington back to Boston and are harassed and shot at all along the way by farmers and rebels and suffer over 250 casualties. News of the events at Lexington and Concord spreads like wildfire throughout the Colonies.

April 23, 1775 - The Provincial Congress in Massachusetts orders 13,600 American soldiers to be mobilized. Colonial volunteers from all over New England assemble and head for Boston, then establish camps around the city and begin a year long siege of British-held Boston.

May 10, 1775 - American forces led by Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold capture Fort Ticonderoga in New York. The fort contains a much needed supply of military equipment including cannons which are then hauled to Boston by ox teams.

May 10, 1775 - The Second Continental Congress convenes in Philadelphia, with John Hancock elected as its president. On May 15, the Congress places the colonies in a state of defense. On June 15, the Congress unanimously votes to appoint George Washington general and commander-in-chief of the new Continental Army.

June 17, 1775 - The first major fight between British and American troops occurs at Boston in the Battle of Bunker Hill. American troops are dug in along the high ground of Breed's Hill (the actual location) and are attacked by a frontal assault of over 2000 British soldiers who storm up the hill. The Americans are ordered not to fire until they can see "the whites of their eyes." As the British get within 15 paces, the Americans let loose a deadly volley of musket fire and halt the British advance. The British then regroup and attack 30 minutes later with the same result. A third attack, however, succeeds as the Americans run out of ammunition and are left only with bayonets and stones to defend themselves. The British succeed in taking the hill, but at a loss of half their force, over a thousand casualties, with the Americans losing about 400, including important colonial leader, General Joseph Warren.

July 3, 1775 - At Cambridge, Massachusetts, George Washington takes command of the Continental Army which now has about 17,000 men.

July 5, 1775 - The Continental Congress adopts the Olive Branch Petition which expresses hope for a reconciliation with Britain, appealing directly to the King for help in achieving this. In August, King George III refuses even to look at the petition and instead issues a proclamation declaring the Americans to be in a state of open rebellion.

July 6, 1775 - The Continental Congress issues a Declaration on the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms detailing the colonists' reasons for fighting the British and states the Americans are "resolved to die free men rather than live as slaves."

July 26, 1775 - An American Post Office is established with Ben Franklin as Postmaster General.

November 28, 1775 - The American Navy is established by Congress. The next day, Congress appoints a secret committee to seek help from European nations.

December 23, 1775 - King George III issues a royal proclamation closing the American colonies to all commerce and trade, to take effect in March of 1776. Also in December, Congress is informed that France may offer support in the war against Britain.

January 5, 1776 - The assembly of New Hampshire adopts the first American state constitution.

January 9, 1776 - Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" is published in Philadelphia. The 50 page pamphlet is highly critical of King George III and attacks allegiance to Monarchy in principle while providing strong arguments for American independence. It becomes an instant best-seller in America. "We have it in our power to begin the world anew...American shall make a stand, not for herself alone, but for the world," Paine states.

March 4-17, 1776 - American forces capture Dorchester Heights which overlooks Boston harbor. Captured British artillery from Fort Ticonderoga is placed on the heights to enforce the siege against the British in Boston. The British evacuate Boston and set sail for Halifax. George Washington then rushes to New York to set up defenses, anticipating the British plan to invade New York City.

April 6, 1776 - The Continental Congress declares colonial shipping ports open to all traffic except the British. The Congress had already authorized privateer raids on British ships and also advised disarming all Americans loyal to England.

April 12, 1776 - The North Carolina assembly is the first to empower its delegates in the Continental Congress to vote for independence from Britain.

May 2, 1776 - The American revolutionaries get the much needed foreign support they had been hoping for. King Louis XVI of France commits one million dollars in arms and munitions. Spain then also promises support.

May 10, 1776 - The Continental Congress authorizes each of the 13 colonies to form local (provincial) governments.

June 28, 1776 - In South Carolina, American forces at Fort Moultrie successfully defend Charleston against a British naval attack and inflict heavy damage on the fleet.

June-July, 1776 - A massive British war fleet arrives in New York Harbor consisting of 30 battleships with 1200 cannon, 30,000 soldiers, 10,000 sailors, and 300 supply ships, under the command of General William Howe and his brother Admiral Lord Richard Howe.

June-July, 1776 - On June 7, Richard Henry Lee, a Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, presents a formal resolution calling for America to declare its independence from Britain. Congress decides to postpone its decision on this until July. On June 11, Congress appoints a committee to draft a declaration of independence. Committee members are Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Livingston and Roger Sherman. Jefferson is chosen by the committee to prepare the first draft of the declaration, which he completes in one day. Just seventeen days later, June 28, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence is ready and is presented to the Congress, with changes made by Adams and Franklin. On July 2, twelve of thirteen colonial delegations (New York abstains) vote in support of Lee's resolution for independence. On July 4, the Congress formally endorses Jefferson's Declaration, with copies to be sent to all of the colonies. The actual signing of the document occurs on August 2, as most of the 55 members of Congress place their names on the parchment copy.

July 4, 1776 - THE UNITED STATES DECLARES INDEPENDENCE

July 12, 1776 - As a show of force, two British frigates sail up the Hudson River blasting their guns. Peace feelers are then extended to the Americans. At the request of the British, Gen. Washington meets with Howe's representatives in New York and listens to vague offers of clemency for the American rebels. Washington politely declines, then leaves.

August 27-29, 1776 - Gen. Howe leads 15,000 soldiers against Washington's army in the Battle of Long Island. Washington, outnumbered two to one, suffers a severe defeat as his army is outflanked and scatters. The Americans retreat to Brooklyn Heights, facing possible capture by the British or even total surrender.

But at night, the Americans cross the East River in small boats and escape to Manhattan, then evacuate New York City and retreat up through Manhattan Island to Harlem Heights. Washington now changes tactics, avoiding large scale battles with the British by a series of retreats.

September 11, 1776 - A peace conference is held on Staten Island with British Admiral, Lord Richard Howe, meeting American representatives including John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. The conference fails as Howe demands the colonists revoke the Declaration of Independence.

September 16, 1776 - After evacuating New York City, Washington's army repulses a British attack during the Battle of Harlem Heights in upper Manhattan. Several days later, fire engulfs New York City and destroys over 300 buildings.

September 22, 1776 - After he is caught spying on British troops on Long Island, Nathan Hale is executed without a trial, his last words, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."

September 26, 1776 - Congress appoints Jefferson, Franklin and Silas Deane to negotiate treaties with European governments. Franklin and Deane then travel to France seeking financial and military aid.

October 9, 1776 - San Francisco is established by Spanish missionaries on the California coast.

October 11, 1776 - A big defeat for the inexperienced American Navy on Lake Champlain at the hands of a British fleet of 87 gunships. In the 7 hour Battle of Valcour Bay most of the American flotilla of 83 gunships is crippled with the remaining ships destroyed in a second engagement two days later.

October 28, 1776 - After evacuating his main forces from Manhattan, Washington's army suffers heavy casualties in the Battle of White Plains from Gen. Howe's forces. Washington then retreats westward.

November, 1776 - More victories for the British as Fort Washington on Manhattan and its precious stores of over 100 cannon, thousands of muskets and cartridges is captured by Gen. Howe. The Americans also lose Fort Lee in New Jersey to Gen. Cornwallis. Washington's army suffers 3000 casualties in the two defeats. Gen. Washington abandons the New York area and moves his forces further westward toward the Delaware River. Cornwallis now pursues him.

December 6, 1776 - The naval base at Newport, Rhode Island, is captured by the British.

December 11, 1776 - Washington takes his troops across the Delaware River into Pennsylvania. The next day, over concerns of a possible British attack, the Continental Congress abandons Philadelphia for Baltimore.

Among Washington's troops is Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, who now writes "...These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country: but he that stands it NOW deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered. Yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph."

December 25-26, 1776 - On Christmas, George Washington takes 2400 of his men and recrosses the Delaware River.

Washington then conducts a surprise raid on 1500 British-Hessians (German mercenaries) at Trenton, New Jersey.

The Hessians surrender after an hour with nearly 1000 taken prisoner by Washington who suffers only six wounded (including future president Lt. James Monroe). Washington reoccupies Trenton. The victory provides a much needed boost to the morale of all American Patriots.

January 3, 1777 - A second victory for Washington as his troops defeat the British at Princeton and drive them back toward New Brunswick. Washington then establishes winter quarters at Morristown, New Jersey. During the harsh winter, Washington's army shrinks to about a thousand men as enlistments expire and deserters flee the hardships. By spring, with the arrival of recruits, Washington will have 9000 men.

March 12, 1777 - The Continental Congress returns to Philadelphia from Baltimore after Washington's successes against the British in New Jersey.

April 27, 1777 - American troops under Benedict Arnold defeat the British at Ridgefield, Connecticut.

June 14, 1777 - The flag of the United States consisting of 13 stars and 13 white and red stripes is mandated by Congress; John Paul Jones is chosen by Congress to captain the 18 gun vessel Ranger with his mission to raid coastal towns of England.

June 17, 1777 - A British force of 7700 men under Gen. John Burgoyne invades from Canada, sailing down Lake Champlain toward Albany, planning to link up with Gen. Howe who will come north from New York City, thus cutting off New England from the rest of the colonies.

July 6, 1777 - Gen. Burgoyne's troops stun the Americans with the capture of Fort Ticonderoga on Lake Champlain. Its military supplies are greatly needed by Washington's forces. The loss of the fort is a tremendous blow to American morale.

July 23, 1777 - British Gen. Howe, with 15,000 men, sets sail from New York for Chesapeake Bay to capture Philadelphia, instead of sailing north to meet up with Gen. Burgoyne.

July 27, 1777 - Marquis de Lafayette, a 19 year old French aristocrat, arrives in Philadelphia and volunteers to serve without pay. Congress appoints him as a major general in the Continental Army. Lafayette will become one of Gen. Washington's most trusted aides.

August 1, 1777 - Gen. Burgoyne reaches the Hudson after a grueling month spent crossing 23 miles of wilderness separating the southern tip of Lake Champlain from the northern tip of the Hudson River.

August 16, 1777 - In the Battle of Bennington, militiamen from Vermont, aided by Massachusetts troops, wipe out a detachment of 800 German Hessians sent by Gen. Burgoyne to seize horses.

August 25, 1777 - British Gen. Howe disembarks at Chesapeake Bay with his troops.

September 9-11, 1777 - In the Battle of Brandywine Creek, Gen. Washington and the main American Army of 10,500 men are driven back toward Philadelphia by Gen. Howe's British troops. Both sides suffer heavy losses. Congress then leaves Philadelphia and resettles in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

September 26, 1777 - British forces under Gen. Howe occupy Philadelphia. Congress then relocates to York, Pennsylvania.

October 7, 1777 - The Battle of Saratoga results in the first major American victory of the Revolutionary War as Gen. Horatio Gates and Gen. Benedict Arnold defeat Gen. Burgoyne, inflicting 600 British casualties. American losses are only 150.

October 17, 1777 - Gen. Burgoyne and his entire army of 5700 men surrender to the Americans led by Gen. Gates. The British are then marched to Boston, placed on ships and sent back to England after swearing not serve again in the war against America. News of the American victory at Saratoga soon travels to Europe and boosts support of the American cause. In Paris the victory is celebrated as if it had been a French victory. Ben Franklin is received by the French Royal Court. France then recognizes the independence of America.

November 15, 1777 - Congress adopts the Articles of Confederation as the government of the new United States of America, pending ratification by the individual states. Under the Articles, Congress is the sole authority of the new national government.

December 17, 1777 - At Valley Forge in Pennsylvania, the Continental Army led by Washington sets up winter quarters.

February 6, 1778 - American and French representatives sign two treaties in Paris: a Treaty of Amity and Commerce and a Treaty of Alliance. France now officially recognizes the United States and will soon become the major supplier of military supplies to Washington's army. Both countries pledge to fight until American independence is won, with neither country concluding any truce with Britain without the other's consent, and guarantee each other's possessions in America against all other powers.

The American struggle for independence is thus enlarged and will soon become a world war. After British vessels fire on French ships, the two nations declare war. Spain will enter in 1779 as an ally of France. The following year, Britain will declare war on the Dutch who have been engaging in profitable trade with the French and Americans. In addition to the war in America, the British will have to fight in the Mediterranean, Africa, India, the West Indies, and on the high seas. All the while facing possible invasion of England itself by the French.

February 23, 1778 - Baron von Steuben of Prussia arrives at Valley Forge to join the Continental Army. He then begins much needed training and drilling of Washington's troops, now suffering from poor morale resulting from cold, hunger, disease, low supplies and desertions over the long, harsh winter.

March 16, 1778 - A Peace Commission is created by the British Parliament to negotiate with the Americans. The commission then travels to Philadelphia where its offers granting all of the American demands, except independence, are rejected by Congress.

May 8, 1778 - British General Henry Clinton replaces Gen. Howe as commander of all British forces in the American colonies.

May 30, 1778 - A campaign of terror against American frontier settlements, instigated by the British, begins as 300 Iroquois Indians burn Cobleskill, New York.

June 18, 1778 - Fearing a blockade by French ships, British Gen. Clinton withdraws his troops from Philadelphia and marches across New Jersey toward New York City. Americans then re-occupy Philadelphia.

June 19, 1778 - Washington sends troops from Valley Forge to intercept Gen. Clinton.

June 27/28, 1778 - The Battle of Monmouth occurs in New Jersey as Washington's troops and Gen. Clinton's troops fight to a standoff. On hearing that American Gen. Charles Lee had ordered a retreat, Gen. Washington becomes furious. Gen. Clinton then continues on toward New York.

July 2, 1778 - Congress returns once again to Philadelphia.

July 3, 1778 - British Loyalists and Indians massacre American settlers in the Wyoming Valley of northern Pennsylvania.

July 8, 1778 - Gen. Washington sets up headquarters at West Point, New York.

July 10, 1778 - France declares war against Britain.

August 8, 1778 - American land forces and French ships attempt to conduct a combined siege against Newport, Rhode Island. But bad weather and delays of the land troops result in failure. The weather-damaged French fleet then sails to Boston for repairs.

September 14, 1778 - Ben Franklin is appointed to be the American diplomatic representative in France.

November 11, 1778 - At Cherry Valley, New York, Loyalists and Indians massacre over 40 American settlers.

December 29, 1778 - The British begin a major southern campaign with the capture of Savannah, Georgia, followed a month later with the capture of Augusta.

April 1-30, 1779 - In retaliation for Indian raids on colonial settlements, American troops from North Carolina and Virginia attack Chickamauga Indian villages in Tennessee.

May 10, 1779 - British troops burn Portsmouth and Norfolk, Virginia.

June 1, 1779 - British Gen. Clinton takes 6000 men up the Hudson toward West Point.

June 16, 1779 - Spain declares war on England, but does not make an alliance with the American revolutionary forces.

July 5-11, 1779 - Loyalists raid coastal towns in Connecticut, burning Fairfield, Norwalk and ships in New Haven harbor.

July 10, 1779 - Naval ships from Massachusetts are destroyed by the British while attempting to take the Loyalist stronghold of Castine, Maine.

August 14, 1779 - A peace plan is approved by Congress which stipulates independence, complete British evacuation of America and free navigation on the Mississippi River.

August 29, 1779 - American forces defeat the combined Indian and Loyalist forces at Elmira, New York. Following the victory, American troops head northwest and destroy nearly 40 Cayuga and Seneca Indian villages in retaliation for the campaign of terror against American settlers.

Sept. 3 - Oct. 28 - Americans suffer a major defeat while attacking the British at Savannah, Georgia. Among the 800 American and Allied casualties is Count Casimir Pulaski of Poland. British losses are only 140.

September 23, 1779 - Off the coast of England, John Paul Jones fights a desperate battle with a British frigate. When the British demand his surrender, Jones responds, "I have not yet begun to fight!" Jones then captures the frigate before his own ship sinks.

September 27, 1779 - John Adams is appointed by Congress to negotiate peace with England.

October 17, 1779 - Washington sets up winter quarters at Morristown, New Jersey, where his troops will suffer another harsh winter without desperately needed supplies, resulting in low morale, desertions and attempts at mutiny.

December 26, 1779 - British Gen. Clinton sets sail from New York with 8000 men and heads for Charleston, South Carolina, arriving there on Feb. 1.

April 8, 1780 - The British attack begins against Charleston as warships sail past the cannons of Fort Moultrie and enter Charleston harbor. Washington sends reinforcements.

May 6, 1780 - The British capture Fort Moultrie at Charleston, South Carolina.

May 12, 1780 - The worst American defeat of the Revolutionary War occurs as the British capture Charleston and its 5400-man garrison (the entire southern American Army) along with four ships and a military arsenal. British losses are only 225.

May 25, 1780 - After a severe winter, Gen. Washington faces a serious threat of mutiny at his winter camp in Morristown, New Jersey. Two Continental regiments conduct an armed march through the camp and demand immediate payment of salary (overdue by 5 months) and full rations. Troops from Pennsylvania put down the rebellion. Two leaders of the protest are then hanged.

June 11, 1780 - A new Massachusetts constitution is endorsed asserting "all men are born free and equal," which includes black slaves.

June 13, 1780 - Gen. Horatio Gates is commissioned by Congress to command the Southern Army.

June 23, 1780 - American forces defeat the British in the Battle of Springfield, New Jersey.

July 11, 1780 - 6000 French soldiers under Count de Rochambeau arrive at Newport, Rhode Island. They will remain there for nearly a year, blockaded by the British fleet.

August 3, 1780 - Benedict Arnold is appointed commander of West Point. Unknown to the Americans, he has been secretly collaborating with British Gen. Clinton since May of 1779 by supplying information on Gen. Washington's tactics.

August 16, 1780 - A big defeat for the Americans in South Carolina as forces under Gen. Gates are defeated by troops of Gen. Charles Cornwallis, resulting in 900 Americans killed and 1000 captured.

August 18, 1780 - An American defeat at Fishing Creek, South Carolina, opens a route for Gen Cornwallis to invade North Carolina.

September 23, 1780 - A British major in civilian clothing is captured near Tarrytown, New York. He is found to be carrying plans indicating Benedict Arnold intends to turn traitor and surrender West Point. Two days later, Arnold hears of the spy's capture and flees West Point to the British ship Vulture on the Hudson. He is later named a brigadier general in the British Army and will fight the Americans.

October 7, 1780 - Gen. Cornwallis abandons his invasion of North Carolina after Americans capture his reinforcements, a Loyalist force of 1000 men.

October 14, 1780 - Gen. Nathanael Greene, Washington's most able and trusted General, is named as the new commander of the Southern Army, replacing Gen. Gates. Greene then begins a strategy of rallying popular support and wearing down the British by leading Gen. Cornwallis on a six month chase through the back woods of South Carolina into North Carolina into Virginia then back into North Carolina. The British, low on supplies, are forced to steal from any Americans they encounter, thus enraging them.

January 3, 1781 - Mutiny among Americans in New Jersey as troops from Pennsylvania set up camp near Princeton and choose their own representatives to negotiate with state officials back in Pennsylvania. The crisis is eventually resolved through negotiations, but over half of the mutineers abandon the army.

January 17, 1781 - An American victory at Cowpens, South Carolina, as Gen. Daniel Morgan defeats British Gen. Tarleton.

January 20, 1781 - Mutiny among American troops at Pompton, New Jersey. The rebellion is put down seven days later by a 600-man force sent by Gen. Washington. Two of the leaders are then hanged.

March 15, 1781 - Forces under Gen. Cornwallis suffer heavy losses in the Battle of Guilford Courthouse in North Carolina. As a result, Cornwallis abandons plans to conquer the Carolinas and retreats to Wilmington, then begins a campaign to conquer Virginia with an army of 7500 men.

May 21, 1781 - Gen. Washington and French Gen. Rochambeau meet in Connecticut for a war council. Gen Rochambeau reluctantly agrees to Washington's plan for a joint French naval and American ground attack on New York.

June 4, 1781 - Thomas Jefferson narrowly escapes capture by the British at Charlottesville, Virginia.

June 10, 1781 - American troops under Marquis de Lafayette, Gen. Anthony Wayne and Baron von Steuben begin to form a combined force in Virginia to oppose British forces under Benedict Arnold and Gen. Cornwallis.

June 11, 1781 - Congress appoints a Peace Commission comprised of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay and Henry Laurens. The commission supplements John Adams as the sole negotiator with the British.

July 20, 1781 - Slaves in Williamsburg, Virginia, rebel and burn several buildings.

August 1, 1781 - After several months of chasing Gen. Greene's army without much success, Gen. Cornwallis and his 10,000 tired soldiers arrive to seek rest at the small port of Yorktown, Virginia, on the Chesapeake Bay. He then establishes a base to communicate by sea with Gen. Clinton's forces in New York.

August 14, 1781 - Gen. Washington abruptly changes plans and abandons the attack on New York in favor of Yorktown after receiving a letter from French Admiral Count de Grasse indicating his entire 29-ship French fleet with 3000 soldiers is now heading for the Chesapeake Bay near Cornwallis. Gen. Washington then coordinates with Gen. Rochambeau to rush their best troops south to Virginia to destroy the British position in Yorktown.

August 30, 1781 - Count de Grasse's French fleet arrives off Yorktown, Virginia. De Grasse then lands troops near Yorktown, linking with Lafayette's American troops to cut Cornwallis off from any retreat by land.

September 1, 1781 - The troops of Washington and Rochambeau arrive at Philadelphia.

September 5-8, 1781 - Off Yorktown, a major naval battle between the French fleet of de Grasse and the outnumbered British fleet of Adm. Thomas Graves results in a victory for de Grasse. The British fleet retreats to New York for reinforcements, leaving the French fleet in control of the Chesapeake. The French fleet establishes a blockade, cutting Cornwallis off from any retreat by sea. French naval reinforcements then arrive from Newport.

September 6, 1781 - Benedict Arnold's troops loot and burn the port of New London, Connecticut.

September 14-24, 1781 - De Grasse sends his ships up the Chesapeake Bay to transport the armies of Washington and Rochambeau to Yorktown.

September 28, 1781 - Gen. Washington, with a combined Allied army of 17,000 men, begins the siege of Yorktown. French cannons bombard Gen. Cornwallis and his 9000 men day and night while the Allied lines slowly advance and encircle them. British supplies run dangerously low.

October 17, 1781 - As Yorktown is about to be taken, the British send out a flag of truce. Gen. Washington and Gen. Cornwallis then work out terms of surrender.

October 19, 1781 - As their band plays the tune, "The world turned upside down," the British army marches out in formation and surrenders at Yorktown. Hopes for a British victory in the war against America are dashed. In the English Parliament, there will soon be calls to bring this long costly war to an end.

HOW LONG A PERIOD OF TIME DID THAT TAKE GAINESBORE???

I suppose waiting around for the British to finally give you liberty is one way to play it. But don't blame us Americans if we chose another path. And yes, guns played a major role in that path. Something we who love liberty have never forgotten.

[ledded1]

And to think that nearly 300 years ago all that led to another 5 kids being killed in the name of the constitution.

Your record is well and truly stuck Del cos this is the same argument you have had with others.

Tell it to the parents of the dead kids I am sure they will be consoled by it all.

[wanna be drummer]

Yes in the Westminster System, the Party elects its leader. But then the party isn't stupid enough to elect a leader the public don't want, because if the public don't like the leader, then come election time the sitting members will lose their seats, so it is in their interests to elect a leader that the public will approve of..

Yes, but also a leader will get as much done that the party wants to get done.

In the British system, yes the House of Lords can be ineffectual, however in the Australian version, we have a Senate that is not ineffectual, and The Senate decides whether or not it'll pass the goverment's bills.

So who's parliamentary monarchy is better? Are we talking about England or Australia? My thoughts were all on the English system..

In America your President has a veto power, which does not happen in Australia. If the Senate votes and passes something, then it is law.

And I think thats wrong. I hate the idea of a supreme legislature power, where nothing checks it. In the American system, the President can veto their laws (which they can in turn, turn over in rare cases) or the Supreme Court can determine their actions unconstitutional. We can keep an eye on those making our laws

The Monarch is not useless as it is a symbol and figure-head for the country. If you lived in Britain you would understand the role the Queen plays in the country and how she represents the country.

I live in America, and I understand the role of the role of our Head of State. I understand that George Bush technically represents our country. Or does that not count because he's not a King?

However, the Head of State and the Head of Goverment must be two seperate people, and the Head of State must not be involved in policy-making, as having that situation would result, if the two did not get on, in continued stale-mate and two centres of governmental power...

Why should they be separate? The Iranians have this system you speak of, and look how thats working for them. They have Ahmed as the President, but he's the puppet of the Supreme Ruler of Iran. The Head of State (Ahmed) is not involved (not really anyways, he does what he's told) in politics, while the Head of Government (the Supreme Ruler of Iran) is the policy-maker of the country. Apparently your system is broken

Again I state it is not good for democracy if your head of state also wields full political power...

Why not? Why should the person who represents an entire country not have any say in how the government runs itself or how the country itself operates? That makes no sense. So the HOS could technically represent a country who's views are obscured from his-herself? That would stupid. A liberal Monarch shouldn't have to be the representative of a Conservative country.

The Queen is paid by a thing called The Civil List, which amounts to a few million pounds a year. From this Civil List the Queen must pay her own bills and house-keeping money, along with staff wages. I guarantee you the amount of money spent on The Queen each year would not be too different from the amount of money spent each year looking after your President... The Queen's estates also generate money from agriculture that go to paying her bills.

The American President, because of his veto power, has more influence and control over Goverment than a westminster system Prime Minister.

No he doesn't. If a Prime Minister doesn't support a bill being passed, he can tell his party not to vote for it and they will obey. This effectively vetos the bill. Then, he can write a new bill favoring his views and get it passed with the same method. A President can only veto, he cannot pass any kind of laws. Also, if the Congress is passionate enough (meaning the people they represent) about a bill, they can undo the veto, albeit it is difficult.

A westminster system goverment is only elected for a 3 year term, so it is prudent for them to implement good policy as they do not have a long time to establish themselves in office before the next election. Any foolishness is quickly dealt with.

Look at Margaret Thatcher for example, PM of Britain. She wanted to introduce the Poll Tax in Britain which the public was dead against. This public disapproval resulted in Thatcher being voted out of office by her party over their concerns of public disapproval.

And...? A President is elected for a 4-year term...is it that horribly different?

[wanna be drummer]

The Westminster System also has something that the American system doesn't have: Question Time in parliament.

Everyday, when parliament is sitting, the Prime Minister (and other ministers) must take and answer questions from the opposition parties. Whatever question they are asked they must answer. Now I have never seen George W Bush do that... I've never seen him have to sit in a room for 12 days and answer all questions put to him by the democrats...

Yes, and I've watched this Question TIme myself. It gets out of hand quickly doesn't it? It's highly uncivilized.

Anywho, the President has to give a State of the Union address. No, it's not dont nearly as much as Question Time, but it gives the people an idea of whats going on in D.C. and what the President is doing (or not doing) to address a specific issue.

Question Time is a crucial check placed on the Prime Minister and his or her government. They have to answer those questions put to them by any member of Parliament.

Are you seious? No it's not. It's not even used in most parliamentary monarchies. England is the sole country that does it. People can read the newspaper if they want to know what's going on in the government if they are that concerened. Besides, if people don't know what their party-in-power's plans are, then they shouldn't have voted them into office in the first place. That's what campaigning is for.