Mitt Romney, what caused the recession? Was it the banks? It was the banks, right? OF COURSE NOT, DON'T BE RIDICULOSE. No, it is losers who aren't rich, attacking rich people with their class warfare for wondering why rich people pay taxes at half the rate everyone else does! You don't even have to watch the video to hear the curl of his lip as he instructs you and your fellow plebeians. But you should watch the video, because it is funny. "When you attack success you have less of it," he lectures, "and that's what we've seen in our economy over the last few years."
Seems very much like Romney is dividing America into those who have quiet rooms to talk in, and those who should shut the fuck up.
If you have kids, and fewer than four mansions, I think we all know you don&#039;t have a quiet room.
Yeah, someone ought to explain to Romney that Dickens was exposing a horror not celebrating a virtue, and that the anglo saxons who stuck it out in the home country have moved on from that shit.
Maximilien Robespierre, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Maximilien Robespierre. your ideas are intrÑguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
And if they object, we can always threaten them with <em>the comfy chair!</em>
Probably the least accurate possible formulation.
United Kingdom = United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland = Britain = England+Wales+Scotland+Northern Ireland = what Parliament has authority over.
Great Britain = England+Wales+Scotland. There is no governmental unit with authority over all these places and no others.
Calling any one of England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland a nation wouldn&#039;t be completely wrong, but it certainly wouldn&#039;t be a full explanation of their status. The UK is really the country in the way it&#039;s normally understood.
But, they do confuse things by identifying themselves in sporting events as &quot;GBR&quot;, and their currency is listed as &quot;GBP&quot;.
Still, you&#039;d have thought that if you were going on a foreign trip with the intention of proving that you&#039;d still be OK on foreign policy despite having <em>absolutely no experience whatsoever</em> on that front, you might do a little thing called &quot;research&quot;.
Yes indeed. A bumpy upfist for it. In a good way, of course.
Given the prodigious amount of lying strictly for personal gain involved in the first alternative, doesn&#039;t it imply the second?
<blockquote> you can never be tinny enough</blockquote>
I propose a vat of molten tin and a Mitt-dip to test this theory...
More like a pantomime roar of &quot;Oh no we won&#039;t&quot;
He should have been more like Mr. Bean, and kept his stupid mouth shut.
What, the curtains?
The reverse Galt?
I was using the term &quot;nation&quot; in the sense that I learned it in Poli Sci 101 a hundred years ago: a geographical area with a population sharing a common history and socio-cultural background. Differentiated from a &quot;state&quot;, which is a political / governmental unit. In my way of looking at things, England, Scotland, Ireland, and maybe Wales are &quot;nations&quot;. The UK is a state (as is the US).
In any case, as you point out, Great Britain is neither.
Also, I&#039;m not certain, but I think the reason they use GBR may be because in the Olympics, athletes from Northern Ireland can choose to belong to either Team GBR or Team IRL. (In things like the World Cup, they dispense with the GB stuff, and field sides from England, Scotland, Wales, etc.)
Not sure about the Northern Ireland part... the British Olympic Association describes itself as \"the National Olympic Commttee for Great Britain and Northern Ireland\". It seems more likely to be due to the fact they&#39;ve been competing as GBR since the first modern olympics, which was, of course, prior to Irish independence (although back then they were \"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but they weren&#39;t exactly known for giving a crap about the Irish).
can i come to your party?