Yes, a 3 day week-end, thank you to queen Victoria for the day off on monday!
Which, BTW, was "replaced" by Patriot's Day in Quebec.. (Actually previously Dolard Des Ormeaux's day).. Patriots against England :D
Dates
· UTC
This is why I like the queen!
Archived86 replies · 2,313 views
This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.
Oh, I thought you meant that she had done something sensible, like pay taxes :D
To my dying day I will never understand why Buckingham Palace has not been overrun and those awful inbreeding bastards strung up by their feet while everyone else throws rotten eggs at them.....but maybe that's just me 
Originally posted by Taboo # 7 To my dying day I will never understand why Buckingham Palace has not been overrun and those awful inbreeding bastards strung up by their feet while everyone else throws rotten eggs at them.....but maybe that's just me
It certainly isnae just you;)
Originally posted by Taboo # 7 Oh, I thought you meant that she had done something sensible, like pay taxes :DTo my dying day I will never understand why Buckingham Palace has not been overrun and those awful inbreeding bastards strung up by their feet while everyone else throws rotten eggs at them.....but maybe that's just me
Yer preachin' to the choir....
Originally posted by Taboo # 7 Oh, I thought you meant that she had done something sensible, like pay taxes :DTo my dying day I will never understand why Buckingham Palace has not been overrun and those awful inbreeding bastards strung up by their feet while everyone else throws rotten eggs at them.....but maybe that's just me
Yeah, why hasn't that happened? In a nation with such oppressive autocrats, I'd expect nothing less than a revolution...or at least another civil war. :D
You'd think that they'd have learned a lesson after the American Revolution....
I'll never be able to understand how someone can think that they can be a monarch by "divine right" or whatever it is.
Ufff Nicos, for a moment I thought you had written "That's why I like Queen" and a cold shudder went through my spine thinking about a prospective Queenonline.
I feel much better now!
Originally posted by Budvar Huber Ufff Nicos, for a moment I thought you had written "That's why I like Queen" and a cold shudder went through my spine thinking about a prospective Queenonline.
I feel much better now!
Funny that! Me too! The thought of a www.itsakindoftosh.com is unbearable!
the queen does pay taxes (true, she didn't for a long time, but does now), the monarchy is hardly 'oppressive', as britain is a constitutional monarchy and parliament has pretty much all of the power even though all bills must be approved by the queen first(no monarch has refused to sign a bill since 1707), and the last monarch to assert that he or she ruled by 'divine right' ended up with his head separated from his body, so i don't think any british monarch would be so daft as to make such a bold claim! not to mention that the queen, as an individual, isn't even one of the top hundred wealthiest people in the UK! as head of state and of the house of windsor she has access to an enormous amount of wealth but, for example, buckingham palace and the crown jewels technically belong to the british state, just as the white house belongs to the US government. in fact, queen beatrix of the netherlands is many times wealthier than queen elizabeth II, yet beatrix is only a ceremonial monarch.
the house of windsor do bring in the tourist dollars, as well, as people are fascinated with the royals, whatever they think of them personally. it's part of what makes the country unique. 
is anyone really that menaced by the presence of the queen? the british monarch has more powers than other european monarchs, so perhaps the underlying problem lies in the lack of a written british constitution, which creates confusion over the relationship between queen and parliament and the extent of the monarch's powers, not in the very existence of the monarchy itself.
so basically, the UK should have a written constitution, allow the queen limited powers to continue with certain elements of tradition (and dispose of others) and keep her as head of state so she can keep the castles nice and neat, keep the tourists coming, wave to the crowds and let parliament get on with the business of running the country. she should keep her gig opening parliament, however...it's quite entertaining to watch.
Totally disagree with the above. They do absolutely nothing for the north. London is already staggeringly wealthier than the rest of the country. I don't think Paris does to badly for tourist since the revolution and London would be same. The royals only get in the way of the tourist industry. Taking up valuable space in the palaces.
We have to plough through pages of sycophantic arse kissing in the papers to get at the news. I absolutely detest Prince fucken William - you might well ask why since I've never met him. The answer lies in the fact he's foisted upon us an all-round babe magnet/action man. There seems to be full time team of spin-doctors at work whose sole purpose is to prop up this anachronistic institution through spin doctoring a public persona onto him. He's often portrayed as the caring Prince seen alongside such bollocks as pictures of his mother visiting victims of landmines. The sole purpose of their existence is in preserving the gravy train for themselves the royals and their hangers-on. They are also a particularly nauseating branch of the media, usually made up of people who talk with the plumiest accents, they come across as totally detached from the rest of society. It’s almost unbelievable to hear them speak in the fawning manner they adopt. Totally out of place in a so-called classless society.
They may now cough up a bit of tax but that’s offset by what they get back from the civil list. The Queen has made over £35m in profit on taxpayers money in the last 10 years. They get £7.9m a year from the civil list. Before her death the Queen Mother received £643,000 a year that on top of the £7.9m, yet still had that enormous £4m overdraft. The national disgrace who is married to the Queen gets £359.000 a year, again on top of the £ 7.9m.
They make good stamps though.
You can't really put a figure on that, other than the Queen and some seasonal ranges at Christmas time.
Originally posted by Huntsman They make good stamps though.You can't really put a figure on that, other than the Queen and some seasonal ranges at Christmas time.
They've had to make stamps self adhesive cos people in the north couldn't decide upon which side of the stamp to spit.
it is technically speaking an offence punishable by death to put a stamp with the queens head on it on an envelope upside down i never even knew my local pub had been on a stamp...
Bloody Ditto Mateactually we probably shouldnt bring god into it, but at least (s)he/its not on the civil list!
Originally posted by Hank Wiseass© Totally disagree with the above. They do absolutely nothing for the north. London is already staggeringly wealthier than the rest of the country. I don't think Paris does to badly for tourist since the revolution and London would be same. The royals only get in the way of the tourist industry. Taking up valuable space in the palaces. We have to plough through pages of sycophantic arse kissing in the papers to get at the news. I absolutely detest Prince fucken William - you might well ask why since I've never met him. The answer lies in the fact he's foisted upon us an all-round babe magnet/action man. There seems to be full time team of spin-doctors at work whose sole purpose is to prop up this anachronistic institution through spin doctoring a public persona onto him. He's often portrayed as the caring Prince seen alongside such bollocks as pictures of his mother visiting victims of landmines. The sole purpose of their existence is in preserving the gravy train for themselves the royals and their hangers-on. They are also a particularly nauseating branch of the media, usually made up of people who talk with the plumiest accents, they come across as totally detached from the rest of society. It’s almost unbelievable to hear them speak in the fawning manner they adopt. Totally out of place in a so-called classless society.They may now cough up a bit of tax but that’s offset by what they get back from the civil list. The Queen has made over £35m in profit on taxpayers money in the last 10 years. They get £7.9m a year from the civil list. Before her death the Queen Mother received £643,000 a year that on top of the £7.9m, yet still had that enormous £4m overdraft. The national disgrace who is married to the Queen gets £359.000 a year, again on top of the £ 7.9m.
Are you speaking as a Manxman by any chance?
HW - I've never witnessed such an outburst since purchasing an in-season tangerine back in January.
In the merry days of Dick Turnip you'd have been strung up from your britches and left to fester for a month whilst goof folk pelt you with tommys and pots.
Don't forget, a civilian who shoots a bow and arrow within the boundaries of York is not bound by law.
Originally posted by Hank Wiseass© We have to plough through pages of sycophantic arse kissing in the papers to get at the news.
but the media wouldn't put news about the royals in the papers if it didn't sell! so somebody out there must be reading it, even if it is tedious (note 'hello' magazine).
and prince william is a babe. and, yes, i've run across him (at st. andrews) and he's got a pretty good head on his shoulders, unlike his grandfather and certain other members of his family. the boy's all right, in my opinion.
What my original statement concerned was my utter inability to understand the NEED for a "royal family" in these modern, somewhat democratic times. They don't really serve a purpose anymore, besides being tabloid fodder.
I suppose all we're hearing is Radio Gaa-Gaa :p
Originally posted by Taboo # 7 What my original statement concerned was my utter inability to understand the NEED for a "royal family" in these modern, somewhat democratic times. They don't really serve a purpose anymore, besides being tabloid fodder.I suppose all we're hearing is Radio Gaa-Gaa :p
the electoral college really doesn't serve any purpose either, except to confuse the crap out of people, yet we hang on to that old dame for some reason or other.
Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> What my original statement concerned was my utter inability to understand the NEED for a "royal family" in these modern, somewhat democratic times. They don't really serve a purpose anymore, besides being tabloid fodder.> > I suppose all we're hearing is Radio Gaa-Gaa :p
the electoral college really doesn't serve any purpose either, except to confuse the crap out of people, yet we hang on to that old dame for some reason or other.
I actually disagree, I WAS of the same opinion until I realized that Al Gore was a robot.....no, actually the design of the electoral college was more benefical than it would seem, because the Founding Fathers (rich white slaveowners that they tended to be) were weary of a popular demagogue being voted to leadership outright by the people (who were admittedly stupider then) who would destroy the country, so they installed the EC to provide some sort of measure against that. The EC has its flaws, but (at least to me) it serves some sort of purpose. Besides, it was the election officals in the state of Bushland...erm, Florida, who screwed up and confused the people
I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me :D
Originally posted by Taboo # 7 > Originally posted by AgentWood> > > > Originally posted by Taboo # 7> > What my original statement concerned was my utter inability to understand the NEED for a "royal family" in these modern, somewhat democratic times. They don't really serve a purpose anymore, besides being tabloid fodder.> > > > I suppose all we're hearing is Radio Gaa-Gaa :p>
the electoral college really doesn't serve any purpose either, except to confuse the crap out of people, yet we hang on to that old dame for some reason or other.
I actually disagree, I WAS of the same opinion until I realized that Al Gore was a robot.....no, actually the design of the electoral college was more benefical than it would seem, because the Founding Fathers (rich white slaveowners that they tended to be) were weary of a popular demagogue being voted to leadership outright by the people (who were admittedly stupider then) who would destroy the country, so they installed the EC to provide some sort of measure against that. The EC has its flaws, but (at least to me) it serves some sort of purpose. Besides, it was the election officals in the state of Bushland...erm, Florida, who screwed up and confused the people
I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me :D
I think the Electoral College was a good idea because it meant that the states held voting power instead of a national voting body, but these days (since parties weren't considered by the founding fathers, despite the Federalist Anti-Federalist split) it ensures that only 2 parties have any realistic chance at being elected. I mean, a candidate has to win an entire state to even get ANY electoral votes. Since electoral votes are the only ones that really matter, no smaller parties will be able to get serious recognition unless they win an entire state, which just isn't realistic. The Electoral College also ensures that states like California and New York with large population centers won't cast a disproportionate amount of votes, which is what would happen if voting for presidential candidates on a national level took place. So, I reluctantly would like to keep the Electoral College--but I think smaller parties would benefit from proportional representational voting for legislative candidates. PR voting would mean that the legislative bodies would be filled according to the percentage of total votes that each party received; it means voting for the parties instead of voting for the candidates themselves, thus putting issues in a more important position than personalities. By voting along more ideological lines, more parties could get more support and therefore actually get seats in legislative bodies, thus making their chances at taking an entire state in a presidential election more feasible by establishing a tangible support basis.
And while the federal Supreme Court technically could've had more time to let the recounts continue in Florida, they did do the right thing consititutionally. just my thoughts...
i find it a bit unnerving that the electoral college vote decides who becomes president, not the popular vote. george bush received, what, half a million fewer votes than gore but won the election...weird. and it's not just because i'm not a bush fan. it's weird in any situation!
also, with the electoral college, a candidate can conceivably win the presidential election by carrying just 12 states! (538 votes, 270 needed to win)
and as a registered member of a third party, i would like to see a system of proportional representation, like in the UK. :D
Originally posted by AgentWood i find it a bit unnerving that the electoral college vote decides who becomes president, not the popular vote. george bush received, what, half a million fewer votes than gore but won the election...weird. and it's not just because i'm not a bush fan. it's weird in any situation!also, with the electoral college, a candidate can conceivably win the presidential election by carrying just 12 states! (538 votes, 270 needed to win)and as a registered member of a third party, i would like to see a system of proportional representation, like in the UK. :D
If popular vote determined who won presidential elections, the states with the largest populations would have a disproportionate advantage over smaller states. That wouldn't be democratic, now would it? As an independent voter (formerly aligned with the Libertarian Party), I've advocated PR voting for years. It would work just fine in legislative elections, but not for President. How could you get 54% of a President from one party, 23% from another party, and so on? I suppose it could be done, but it would be rather messy and the resulting President might have trouble staying in office for 4 years without being very refrigerated or at least embalmed. :D (at least he or she would do a better job than the president we have now....)
Originally posted by David Church If popular vote determined who won presidential elections, the states with the largest populations would have a disproportionate advantage over smaller states.
WHAT? as far as i can see it's the electoral college that ensures that the states with the largest populations have a disproportionate advantage over smaller states, not the popular vote! this is because larger states have more electoral votes (and why bush needed florida so desperately to win--you don't see candidates campaigning furiously in alaska!). so, no matter the voter turnout in large states, they get as many electoral college votes as they have seats in congress. for example, california has 54 and delaware has 3 (one repreentative, 2 senators). so (and this is highly unlikely, but theoretically possible), if more people turned out to vote in delaware than california, california would still have more clout in electing the president because of its large number of electoral votes.
some opponents of the electoral college, however, believe that the system is biased towards rural and smaller states and areas! this is because, for example, in 1988 the combined voting age population of the seven least populous jurisdictions (just over 3 million) carried the same voting power in the electoral college as the entire voting population of florida (just over 9.5 million)! therefore, each floridian potentially carried only 1/3 the voting power of a voter in one of the other seven states.
under the popular vote, all that matters is total numbers, not state population. the popular vote doesn't differentiate between states--it evens out the field. true, there are many more people in certain states and metropolitan areas, but the 'winner-takes-it-all' result of the electoral college is far more detrimental to democracy than populated areas.
Originally posted by AgentWood > Originally posted by David Church> > > If popular vote determined who won presidential elections, the states with the largest populations would have a disproportionate advantage over smaller states.
WHAT? it's the electoral college that ensures that the states with the largest populations have a disproportionate advantage over smaller states, not the popular vote! this is because larger states have more electoral votes (and why bush needed florida so desperately to win--you don't see candidates campaigning furiously in alaska!). so, no matter the voter turnout in large states, they get as many electoral college votes as they have seats in congress. for example, california has 54 and delaware has 3 (one repreentative, 2 senators). so (and this is highly unlikely, but theoretically possible), if more people turned out to vote in delaware than california, california would still have more clout in electing the president because of its large number of electoral votes.
some opponents of the electoral college, however, believe that the system is biased towards rural and smaller states and areas! this is because, for example, in 1988 the combined voting age population of the seven least populous jurisdictions (just over 3 million) carried the same voting power in the electoral college as the entire voting population of florida (just over 9.5 million)! therefore, each floridian potentially carried only 1/3 the voting power of a voter in one of the other seven states.
under the popular vote, all that matters is total numbers, not state population. the popular vote doesn't differentiate between states--it evens out the field. true, there are many more people in certain states and metropolitan areas, but the 'winner-takes-it-all' result of the electoral college is far more detrimental to democracy than populated areas.
Regardless of whether or not the electoral college either benefits or hinders large population centers vs. rural areas (since you do make very good points that I should've considered), I think we are both in agreement that the "winner-take-all" means by which each state's electoral votes are won in a block by the candidate with theoretically the highest popular vote (although the electoral college members are free to vote their own way, and have done so in the past--though it seems rather undemocratic that these people are often chosen by the two dominant parties for their long-term support) is a bad thing. Because a candidate must get a plurality in a state to win any (and consequently all) electoral votes, third parties have no real chance. I'm not sure how this problem could be solved without abolishing the electoral college (i did think of a solution while i was in a polisci class last year, but i've forgotten it now!). oh well, food for thought....
