robbie + bannockburn 1314

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No i am not proud to be Scottish, its simply a matter of having been born here. We are
a divided country, north and south, east and west, industrial and rural. I identify more
as a Glaswegian than a Scot to be honest, we have our own particular culture which is
distinct than from say Edinburgh, although its only fifty miles away. It has to d ...[text shortened]... to govern, it appears to me that anyone regardless of
qualifications can become a politician.

It would have been nice if the British had laid their arms down and let us be free in America. We were not interferring with their freedom in Europe and there would have been no need for the American Revolutionary War.

Originally posted by divegeester
How is it that you cannot say what they should have done; surely as a sworn JW pacifist you cannot condon the fighting and killing?

People have their own perspectives the sooner you learn that the better.

Originally posted by FMF
Democratically electing our representatives is, as I said, not a perfect system of arranging for our governance, but it's the best one available. [There's a Winston Churchill quote in there somewhere.] The issue of whether people are "without the slightest qualifications" for governing is addressed by a democratic mechanism and a flow of information, and they ca y hold democratically accountable. It has its flaws but it's better than any alternative.

So puting someone in charge with no qualifications is better than letting qualified persons appoint other qualified persons, I dont think so. Its absurd.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It would have been nice if the British had laid their arms down and let us be free in America. We were not interferring with their freedom in Europe and there would have been no need for the American Revolutionary War.

If you had followed the Bibles admonition to pay your taxes you would still be enjoying the benefits of British rule.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So putting someone in charge with no qualifications is better than letting qualified persons appoint other qualified persons, I dont think so. Its absurd.

Civil servants, administrators and managers, are "qualified persons".

"Letting 'qualified' persons appoint other 'qualified' persons", rather than using democratic mechanisms for choice and oversight of our leaders, was tried by the likes of Pinochet, Franco, Soeharto, Mussollini and a long list of others. It's interesting that you - someone who purports to be apolitical - should be advocating the authoritarian template for political leadership and governance used by military governments, single party states, dictatorships and despots etc. That is, in fact, a very specific political stance on your part.

What democratic oversight of the "qualified persons [who] appoint other qualified persons" would there be? In what would way would they the "qualified persons" who are appointing each other be accountable? How would the citizenry be able to remove them?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
People have their own perspectives the sooner you learn that the better.

Do you think that those Scotts who fought at Bannockburn were doing the right thing by their families, or should they have laid down arms; if the situation arose now what would you do?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If you had followed the Bibles admonition to pay your taxes you would still be enjoying the benefits of British rule.

You do mean the "benefits" of British rule, don't you?

I do believe we've enjoyed far more benefits by being independent than we ever would under British rule. On top of that, we've kept the Monarchy from enjoying world domination. That alone should be worth your thanks.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You do mean the "benefits" of British rule, don't you?

I do believe we've enjoyed far more benefits by being independent than we ever would under British rule. On top of that, we've kept the Monarchy from enjoying world domination. That alone should be worth your thanks.

I was merely jesting, never the less, your countries adoption of manifest destiny has produced quite horrendous consequences. It is clear you cannot govern yourselves.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It would have been nice if the British had laid their arms down and let us be free in America. We were not interferring with their freedom in Europe and there would have been no need for the American Revolutionary War.

How can you claim such when America has gone in to everywhere where it might not be welcomed??

Vietnam, Iraq, Grenada, a whole host of other places where it has tried and not achieved success as the world's policeman. Central America where Col. Oliver North got himself into trouble thanks to Reagan.

Why do you suppose Obama wants to bring these troops home from Afghanistan and all these other places? It is mainly for two reasons.

1: They have failed in their objectives and they are no longer welcome, and
2: They no longer have the financial resources to conduct such operations.


All these places are still not any better off thanks to US intervention.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No i am not proud to be Scottish, its simply a matter of having been born here. We are
a divided country, north and south, east and west, industrial and rural. I identify more
as a Glaswegian than a Scot to be honest, we have our own particular culture which is
distinct than from say Edinburgh, although its only fifty miles away. It has to d ...[text shortened]... to govern, it appears to me that anyone regardless of
qualifications can become a politician.

You were saying your particular culture has to do with an Irish influx.

Do you happen to know what century it was those Irishmen came to your area?

My family name, granparents on one side anyway, are the McCarts and if true the history goes back to about the year 700 to a local king called Mac Art, on the central west coast of Ireland.

On the other side, my other grandparents were Murphy's, haven't followed them back to Ireland yet.

So I am wondering if your influx was due to a very early on invasion or perhaps as a result of refuge flight from the potato famine of the mid 1800's.

Any idea of that? It could also have been during any of the centuries of the British suppression of the Irish, like not allowing dancing, singing in Irish, playing Irish music and so forth.

It is said Irish step dancing was invented to fool the Brits when they would look at someone through those double dutch doors, only seeing the upper half of the body meanwhile the feet are dancing up and down unnoticed by the brit soldiers.

Arms straight to one's side and so forth. Did you ever hear that theory?

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
How can you claim such when America has gone in to everywhere where it might not be welcomed??

Vietnam, Iraq, Grenada, a whole host of other places where it has tried and not achieved success as the world's policeman. Central America where Col. Oliver North got himself into trouble thanks to Reagan.

Why do you suppose Obama wants to bring thes ...[text shortened]... such operations.


All these places are still not any better off thanks to US intervention.

The countries of the United States and Britian is described in Revelation as a duel world power that does exactly as you have described here with their forced influance in most of the world since their beginnings of a few hundred years now.

Revelation 13:11-15
English Standard Version (ESV)

The Second Beast

11 Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns ( USA & Britian ) like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercises all the authority of the first beast ( League of Nations )in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed. ( It became the United nations )
13 It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people, 14 and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain.

Notice it has horns like a peaceful lamb but yet speaks like a dragon. It has the appearance and actions at times as a peace maker but yet has the actions of a deadly dragon as history has shown over and over. Those offensive actions are usually in responce to protecting their interest and not always in the interest of peace.

Originally posted by galveston75
The countries of the United States and Britian is described in Revelation as a duel world power that does exactly as you have described here with their forced influance in most of the world since their beginnings of a few hundred years now.

Revelation 13:11-15
English Standard Version (ESV)

The Second Beast

11 Then I saw another beast rising o ...[text shortened]... ns are usually in responce to protecting their interest and not always in the interest of peace.

You are deluded.
What I said above has nothing to do with religion.

You could take that passage from Revelation and apply it to China, Russia, Iran,
North Korea or anywhere else you choose.

Don't look to religion to answer your problems.

It will not.

Religion only divides people, it does not aid them.

Originally posted by johnnylongwoody
You are deluded.
What I said above has nothing to do with religion.

You could take that passage from Revelation and apply it to China, Russia, Iran,
North Korea or anywhere else you choose.

Don't look to religion to answer your problems.

It will not.

Religion only divides people, it does not aid them.

Well excuse me for my comment. Didn't know it would upset you so much!!!!!!

Originally posted by galveston75
The countries of the United States and Britian is described in Revelation as a duel world power that does exactly as you have described here with their forced influance in most of the world since their beginnings of a few hundred years now.

Revelation 13:11-15
English Standard Version

Can't a verse like Revelation 13:11 be taken by any partisan or ideologue or demagogue to mean whatever they want or need it to mean?

Originally posted by FMF
Can't a verse like Revelation 13:11 be taken by any partisan or ideologue or demagogue to mean whatever they want or need it to mean?

Yes of course it can.

That was my point above.

I meant no offense to Galveston.

It just irritates me that some people seem to think that the Bible has all the answers.

It doesn't and people can bend it to suit their own arguments.