Australia is the new Rhodesia

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thumbpicker
  • Start date Start date
That the British were particularly autocratic. The colonist's tax burden was like 2-3%. There's a good contrarian essay on this by Gary North. Let me know if you're interested.
Some of the convicts that escaped Macquarie Harbour Penal station on the West Coast of Tasmania were probably just as free. Except they ran out of food in rugged bushland and ate each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Pearce
 
That the British were particularly autocratic. The colonist's tax burden was like 2-3%. There's a good contrarian essay on this by Gary North. Let me know if you're interested. He calls them traitors and says it was all a waste, simply giving rise to big gov. Hard to argue with that.
Dude, even the modern British are a lot more autocratic than we are.
 
So your point wasn’t that the British government wasn’t autocratic ?
The point was taking about the colonial era British government's tyranny with respect to the American colonists in light of our present day leviathan is silly.
 
The point was taking about the colonial era British government's tyranny with respect to the American colonists in light of our present day leviathan is silly.
When you’re talking about something like the intentions of the founders with regards to the constitution that doesn’t mean you think they were particularly successful with their design.
 
When you’re talking about something like the intentions of the founders with regards to the constitution that doesn’t mean you think they were particularly successful with their design.
Probably should have stuck with the articles of confederation.
 
Dude, even the modern British are a lot more autocratic than we are.
I actually disagree with this. You can't chuck a President out very easily by comparison to the Wesminster system where the party can throw them out. You elect a Party into Government in Britain and Australia - not the Prime Minister (at least not directly). So really the US is a democratic autocracy - because the power of the President is far greater than in our systems.
 
I actually disagree with this. You can't chuck a President out very easily by comparison to the Wesminster system where the party can throw them out. You elect a Party into Government in Britain and Australia - not the Prime Minister (at least not directly). So really the US is a democratic autocracy - because the power of the President is far greater than in our systems.
Not surprising brother. You definitely have an affinity for the British. From my POV they can fuck off though.
 
Your kind going to hell for all eternity isn't my plan.. it's God's plan. And I'm in 100% agreement with God's plan.

You better get off the dang Internets, take that dick out yo mouth, and repent.

Faggot.



:cool: ? ?

1729128026787.png
 
Not surprising brother. You definitely have an affinity for the British. From my POV they can fuck off though.
It's not about affinity - it's just about how the electoral process works. You elect an individual - we elect parties. I'm just pointing out the consequences in terms of ease of dismissing a President/Prime Minister and how that relates to how powerful they are (domestically that is).
 
It's not about affinity - it's just about how the electoral process works. You elect an individual - we elect parties. I'm just pointing out the consequences in terms of ease of dismissing a President/Prime Minister and how that relates to how powerful they are (domestically that is).
Oh it's about affinity bro.

And as far as presidents go, they have a hell of a lot less power than you think they do. You don't think they are running the country do you ?
 
Back
Top