I understand the point you were trying to make, but British Prime Ministers are all in fact Lords.
Historically, the title "prime minister" was not used (other than as an insult) and instead the most senior elected leader in the UK was known as The First Lord of the Treasury. Whilst that remains today, the title prime minister is widely and popularly used instead.
Henry Campbell-Bannerman was the first elected leader (1905) to popularly use the "prime minister" title.
Based on my experience doing very similar projects across China, my advice is to approach the many foreign firms doing business in your target country. Ask them for donations of hardware, expertise and / or cash.
We receive around 1,100 used laptops per year from the Fortune 500 companies doing business in China as well as thousands of volunteer hours (and occasionally cash). We send out emails twice a year and arrange collection of donated hardware.
I also agree that "teaching the teachers" should be the first step.
"Next attack"? Care to point me in the direction of a time since 1709 when Afghanistan has invaded or attacked another nation? Why threaten with annihilation a nation that has never harmed you or your country?
Afghanistan has been invaded by hostile forces repeatedly since 1709. The Afghanis have resisted those invasions as any nation rightly would.
The "American Dream" = money? Not much of dream then.
I do not want to live in an economy. I live in a society. I agree that an economy is important but do not accept that money / profit should come before all else.
The agreement you refer was a bilateral agreement that would have resulted in North Korea receiving a light-water reactor in exchange for its undertakings not to proceed with a heavy-water system.
The agreement you refer to was unilaterally broken and not by North Korea.
Not at all. You are right that only US citizens are able to be issued a legitimate US passport but it is not true that all US citizens qualify for the grant of a US passport.
A US passport is not a right in law, but a privilege.
Unless of course they were the "founding fathers" who never did any wrong. I remain amazed by how often the anachronistic laws set by a group of largely uneducated men over 200 years ago are defended as being untouchable.
Can you explain then why both the 1867 Naval Appropriations Bill and the 1883 Pendeleton Acts exist?
I can. Because as early as the 1860's was the issue of money distorting US Federal elections. Both acts sought to limit the ability of private funds finding their way into candidate's pockets.
Some of what you say in indeed correct but I am surprised that you would argue against "direct" democracy - i.e. people ruling or that the role of money and corporations is a "modern phenomenon".
The ancient Greeks were very much aware of the possibility that elections could be influenced by wealth or special interest groups. Their solution was ballot rather than election as with a ballot only the Gods could possibly interfere and that was "OK".
Democracy is government by the people. America is not governed by the people to the extent necessary for it to be considered a democracy.
For example the majority of the most powerful and important government roles (Secretary of State, Treasurer, Secretary of Defence etc etc etc) are appointed - not elected. That is the opposite of democracy and is a situation that would never be tolerated in most of the world's actual democracies.
I restate, universal suffrage does not equal democracy.
I agree with this and would add one more observation.
Americans confuse universal suffrage with democracy. They assume that because leaders are elected that it is a democracy. America has universal (well kinda sorta) suffrage but it is not a democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not stop killing human beings in the name of "justice"?
If only I had mod points today .
You have hit the nail on the head - no investment in growing and developing exactly the people that are now in short supply.
I understand the point you were trying to make, but British Prime Ministers are all in fact Lords.
Historically, the title "prime minister" was not used (other than as an insult) and instead the most senior elected leader in the UK was known as The First Lord of the Treasury. Whilst that remains today, the title prime minister is widely and popularly used instead.
Henry Campbell-Bannerman was the first elected leader (1905) to popularly use the "prime minister" title.
Based on my experience doing very similar projects across China, my advice is to approach the many foreign firms doing business in your target country. Ask them for donations of hardware, expertise and / or cash.
We receive around 1,100 used laptops per year from the Fortune 500 companies doing business in China as well as thousands of volunteer hours (and occasionally cash). We send out emails twice a year and arrange collection of donated hardware.
I also agree that "teaching the teachers" should be the first step.
Your HR is wrong.
It may not be where you come from, but it is here.
You say "socialism" as though it is a bad thing.
Many many countries that are not the USA don't agree.
The hammock district!
"Next attack"? Care to point me in the direction of a time since 1709 when Afghanistan has invaded or attacked another nation? Why threaten with annihilation a nation that has never harmed you or your country?
Afghanistan has been invaded by hostile forces repeatedly since 1709. The Afghanis have resisted those invasions as any nation rightly would.
The "American Dream" = money? Not much of dream then.
I do not want to live in an economy. I live in a society. I agree that an economy is important but do not accept that money / profit should come before all else.
My point remains, the overwhelming majority of your post consists of allegations and on these current charges he has yet to be found guilty.
"Asshole"? Really? My limited understanding is that he is an innocent person until found otherwise, no?
It is all too easy to cast allegations around. At this stage he is not an "asshole" but instead a wholly innocent person accused of serious crimes.
The agreement you refer was a bilateral agreement that would have resulted in North Korea receiving a light-water reactor in exchange for its undertakings not to proceed with a heavy-water system.
The agreement you refer to was unilaterally broken and not by North Korea.
Not necessarily. There are often significant tax advantages to leasing.
If only that were correct. The US government can and does withhold the issue of passports for a range of reasons including the ones you mention above.
The grant of a passport is not a right and the United Declaration on Human Rights is silent on the issue of travel.
Both of your assertions are threfore incorrect.
Not at all. You are right that only US citizens are able to be issued a legitimate US passport but it is not true that all US citizens qualify for the grant of a US passport.
A US passport is not a right in law, but a privilege.
I agree with all you say and I commend you for arguing it as well as you have.
But you have forgotten the centerpiece when it comes to understanding the relationship between Iran and the rest of the world.
Israel.
Add that complexity to your points above and you have a much fuller picture.
Can someone please change the headline from "In Xhengzhou, Thousands Vie For Foxconn Jobs" to "In Zhengzhou, Thousands Vie For Foxconn Jobs".
The name of the Chinese city in question is Zhengzhou not Xhengzhou.
Unless of course they were the "founding fathers" who never did any wrong. I remain amazed by how often the anachronistic laws set by a group of largely uneducated men over 200 years ago are defended as being untouchable.
Can you explain then why both the 1867 Naval Appropriations Bill and the 1883 Pendeleton Acts exist?
I can. Because as early as the 1860's was the issue of money distorting US Federal elections. Both acts sought to limit the ability of private funds finding their way into candidate's pockets.
Some of what you say in indeed correct but I am surprised that you would argue against "direct" democracy - i.e. people ruling or that the role of money and corporations is a "modern phenomenon".
The ancient Greeks were very much aware of the possibility that elections could be influenced by wealth or special interest groups. Their solution was ballot rather than election as with a ballot only the Gods could possibly interfere and that was "OK".
And again, you fail totally to understand what a democracy is.
Democracy is government by the people. America is not governed by the people to the extent necessary for it to be considered a democracy.
For example the majority of the most powerful and important government roles (Secretary of State, Treasurer, Secretary of Defence etc etc etc) are appointed - not elected. That is the opposite of democracy and is a situation that would never be tolerated in most of the world's actual democracies.
I restate, universal suffrage does not equal democracy.
I agree with this and would add one more observation.
Americans confuse universal suffrage with democracy. They assume that because leaders are elected that it is a democracy. America has universal (well kinda sorta) suffrage but it is not a democracy.