A. prison camps and human rights in the Soviet Union
B. the European economy and banking system
C. problems with communism in China
D. U.S. interference in latin american politics

2) Which term describes the voters’ removal of an elected official from office before his or her term is over?

A. impeachment
B. recall
C. plurality
D. reprieve

3) What is the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor?

A. A misdemeanor is a major crime. A felony is a minor crime.
B. A felony involves several people. A misdemeanor involves one person.
C. A misdemeanor requires a judge and jury. A felony only requires a judge.
D. A felony is a major crime. A misdemeanor is a minor crime.

4) Which factor is most likely to help move a dictatorship towards democracy?

A. fascism
B. a failing economy
C. a stable government
D. government hard-liners

5) The United States government puts high tariffs on a certain product that is imported from other countries. What effect does this have in the United States?

A. U.S. producers have to compete more with the imported product.
B. High tariffs create a greater demand for the imported product.
C. The product costs more in the U.S. that on the world market.
D. The product costs less in the U.S. that on the world market.

ABDBC

Now, as I understand the politics of the British Overseas Territories, of which the Falklands is a part, each has the right to self-govern, similar to how British Dominions had prior to 1931. They have the right to make decisions on their own on how their country is ran and who their country is run by and they pay a sum every so often out of their taxes to the British Government to have their defence and foreign affairs dealt with.

Now the Falklands have the right to referendum and decide whether they independently run themselves, whether they remain under Britain or whether they go under Argentina. Now if the Falklands hate Britain so much why haven’t they voted to go under Argentinian rule?

At the end of the day, how are we the colonial enclave, the Falklands have not objected to being under British rule when they have the full right to object. The ones objecting to the Falklands being under British rule are Argentina and it very much looks to me, like Argentina is trying to force a group of islands under its rule, who don’t want to be, so if we are the colonial enclave, how would Argentina be any better if they had the Falklands under their rule. Cos from how the Overseas Territories work, clearly the Falklands don’t want to be part of Argentina otherwise they would have voted to become part of it, so how is Britain the colonial enclave and not Argentina in this? Argentina are the ones trying to force a country under their rule.
Georgio, the majority of the Falkland Islands are populated by British descendants and the country is off of the coast of South American mainland and in all of history the only country we have had in the mainland of South America is Belize, a country still under the Queen and again has the right to referendum. We have barely touched South America. And the only reason the Spanish and Portuguese will object is the fact we were one of their biggest rivals when Europe was building empires.
Georgio, how can you blame Britain for the failed success of colonies we had nothing to do with? Our presence in South America aside from one small colony, if you exclude the Falklands, which again is small, did not exist and we cannot be blamed for any issues those countries in South America are facing. You can blame us for Chinese progression in the 21st Century, a country who we forced into the modern era during the Opium Wars, you can blame us for poverty in India and Africa, the mess we left in the Holy Land and Iraq, the oppression we imposed on the fair citizens of the 13 founding states of the United States of America, but you cannot blame us for the state of South America, that is well and truly the faults of the Spanish and Portuguese and if they want to go around blaming other countries for their actions they can be my guest, but I will own up to the messes my country left behind, but South America was not one of them.

Basically you are right. The Argentinians figure that the proximity of the islands to their territory means they should have control of them. The islands were not always under British control. However as you’ve pointed out the residents of the islands have consistently voted to remain under British affiliation and not join Argentina. So the saga continues with Argentina claiming the islands and calling Britain a colonial power etc and of course Britain claiming the residents choice. Now that oil has been discovered the economic benefits are potentially huge. For Argentina it would assist the government a lot and allow them to become even more influential. The UK has the experience to develop the oil field and would probably make a better deal for the benefit of the locals.

O’Grady made a presentation at Reason Weekend 2012, Reason Foundation’s annual donor event. He talked about why Latin American countries are so susceptible to socialism and identified the “three P’s” of “Populism, Protectionism, and Prohibition” as the primary sources of the region’s biggest problems.

About 32 minutes. Filmed by Joshua Swain and Anthony Fisher. Edited by Zach Weissmueller.

Visit http://reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Duration : 0:32:17

Technorati Tags: drug war, free market, Hugo Chavez, latin america, Latin American drug war, leftist politics, libertarian, Mary O'Grady, Reason Magazine, Socialism, Wall Street Journal

Duration : 0:2:7

Technorati Tags: 28.04.2012, argentina, Cristina Fernández, CSF Rieti, Foreign Minister, oil company Repsol, politics news, President, Spanish, trust, YPF

SUSCRIBETE AL CANAL Y CLICK EN ME GUSTA (Y)
CONTACTO —- http://www.facebook.com/Mc.MOY.030394

Duration : 0:5:23

Technorati Tags: DEBATE, DEBATE POLITO, FAMILA DEL BARRIO, FAMILIA, NORUEGO, PARODIA, PARODIA DEL DEBATE, PEÑA NIETO, POLITICO, POLITICO PARODIA

Argentina told it must pay back £45 million loan it got from UK way back in 1979.
They had used the money borrowed from the UK to buy two Type 42 destroyers, which were deployed during the invasion as well as two Lynx helicopters.

Am I the only one who thinks the Argentinian government should cough up there debt roughly 33 years down the line ? Instead of continuously arguing over these islands. (Despite the fact there is no valid argument there in the first place)

And where the previous government not very courageous to borrow cash from UK, the same country they where at war with only three years later ?..Probably done knowingly too.

Thanks.
@Unijaw – Yes, I was the same, I just came across it whilst reading the news. I believe they will cause some sort of weak excuse to get out of this.

And as for UK lending the money in the first place, and more so to a dictatorship, I doubt Argentina is the only dictatorship UK has funded in it’s lifespan.

It’s sort of like a game of cat and mouse between the two, one petty argument after another.
Wish someone would knock some common sense into them or good, no more arguments then eh ? …

Cheers.


I was not aware of this. Well of course it should pay back the loan will be very interesting to see what occurs from this. The Argentinans could claim that it was a dictatorship who took out this loan and the Brits should just get stuffed. After all loaning money to a dictator is not a moral thing to do and after all this did come back and bite the UK in the nads. So I suppose there is a weak excuse not to pay it back.

See many other Democracy Now! interviews with Noam Chomsky in our playlist: http://bit.ly/JdNHZS

For additional reports on this case, or to watch the complete independent, weekday news hour, please visit http://www.democracynow.org.

FOLLOW DEMOCRACY NOW! ONLINE:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/democracynow
Twitter: @democracynow
Subscribe on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/democracynow
Listen on SoundCloud: http://www.soundcloud.com/democracy-now
Daily Email News Digest: http://www.democracynow.org/subscribe

Please consider supporting independent media by making a donation to Democracy Now! today, visit http://www.democracynow.org/donate/YT

Duration : 0:14:4

Technorati Tags: 2012, Amy Goodman, Assassinations, Bush, Democracy Now!, DN, latin america, news, Noam Chomsky, Obama, politics, Wikileaks, Yemen

Duration : 0:1:52

Technorati Tags: ad, airing, an, anger, argentina, Argentinas-, Argentine, argentinian, athlete, bretaña, British, by, cristina, falkland, falklands, Fernández, gran, ingleses, islands, islas, Malvinas, of, Olympic, on, plays, politics, presidenta, risks, television, The, training

La importancia en la gestualidad que tiene un político a la hora de dar su mensaje hacia el público revela aspectos muy importantes de su personalidad. El análisis de la comunicación no verbal de los líderes es una de las materias fundamentales a estudiar en el marketing político ya que se transforma en un componente primordial de su perfil.

Obviamente no todo es arte de magia; el marketing político no puede hacerlo todo y hay cualidades innatas propias de las personalidades de cada ser humano. Sin embargo, existen características que se pueden explotar más profundamente para favorecer a un candidato político: posturas, gestos, ademanes y expresiones. Estas influyen benévolamente o negativamente y en forma inmediata en las personas que perciben sensaciones disímiles de acuerdo al político que tengan enfrente, resultándole más o menos carismático.

El lenguaje corporal revela muchos sentimientos íntimos, ya sea que tengamos la intención de revelarlos o no. Desde el simple contacto visual a un ligero toque en la pierna, los gestos corporales son una forma muy directa de comunicación.

Es imposible para los seres humanos no comunicar sus más íntimos pensamientos. En muchos casos el lenguaje corporal, contacto visual y los gestos sexuales son más efectivos que la comunicación verbal. Aprender a interpretar el lenguaje corporal puede ayudarnos a discernir lo que la gente realmente está diciendo.

Los gestos, las caras y el movimiento del cuerpo suponen el 93% de la comunicación, sólo un 7% del entendimiento deriva de las palabras. Los expertos en el lenguaje no verbal nos cuentan los momentos más icónicos de la historia, desde el mundo de deportes hasta el de las celebridades. Analizan su lenguaje corporal para descifrar lo que realmente querían decir estos famosos personajes. Veremos cómo el movimiento más sutil se puede utilizar para influir en las masas y establecer el poder y, la mayoría de las veces, sin que nadie se de cuenta.

Te invitamos a que nos visites http://www.todomarketingpolitico.com

Democracia, Trastienda política, Marketing político, Comunicación política y afines!

Súmate a nuestras redes sociales y participa

En Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Todomarketingpolitico

En Twitter: http://twitter.com/todomktpolitic

Síguenos: @todomktpolitic

Duration : 0:14:56

Technorati Tags: comunicacion no verbal, lenguaje corporal, Política, secretos corporales, secretos del lenguaje, sinergologia