May i ask why you talk about our Queen in such a fashion ?
Has she not ALWAYS been a friend to the USA ?
Please i don’t belittle ANY of your presidents no matter who they were, so kindly offer me the same courtesy.
That good lady has been in power since she was young, whether she liked it or not, so please any snarky comments keep them to yourself.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Winston Churchill saw that country through it’s darkest but greatest hour, and did what no King or Queen could have ever done. [/quote]
To be fair though, it’s kind of the opposite - it was WWII which saw the Royals give arguably the best account of themselves ever. You know, the Blitz and their staying put in London, the visits to the bombed out ruins etc…might sound a bit twee now, but that time marks one of their greatest in terms of (sincere) endearment with the public.
And yeah I DO hate punks…
[quote]red bull wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Winston Churchill saw that country through it’s darkest but greatest hour, and did what no King or Queen could have ever done.
To be fair though, it’s kind of the opposite - it was WWII which saw the Royals give arguably the best account of themselves ever. You know, the Blitz and their staying put in London, the visits to the bombed out ruins etc…might sound a bit twee now, but that time marks one of their greatest in terms of (sincere) endearment with the public.
[/quote]
Was going to say the same. “I’m glad we’ve been bombed. Now I can look the East End in the face.”
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Since when? You were lauding Thomas Paine on here not so long ago.[/quote]
True, just because I think a guy has some very good ideas doesn’t mean I buy into them all. I’ve also spoken highly of both Jefferson and Hamilton in adjacent paragraphs. I’m a huge fan of JA, but I don’t think the Alien and Sedition Acts were okay though. TP has done good service to our country and mankind with his works on deism as well as the rights of man as a species rather than as members of a nation. I remain a big fan of the man.
Even his take on one of the original forms of Social Security in “Agrarian Justice” made a lot of sense for the time.
mike
I’m British and I’m a republican. In my opinion, one of the greatest problems Britain’s got is a lack of social mobility. Obviously it’s a fairly complex problem but if we get rid of the Royals, then we can start trying to make sure hard work- not just going to the right school, is rewarded.
[quote]majicka wrote:
I’m British and I’m a republican. In my opinion, one of the greatest problems Britain’s got is a lack of social mobility. Obviously it’s a fairly complex problem but if we get rid of the Royals, then we can start trying to make sure hard work- not just going to the right school, is rewarded.[/quote]
???
WHAT
What has schooling got to do with the Royal Family ???
Every 1st World country in the world has private education look at the US… how can you possibly link Education and the Royal Family is beyond me.
You missed the point about schools, I don’t know how you could not think that we don’t live in a rigid society! Too many people get jobs because of where they went to school, who they know etc. rather than actual ability. Social mobility has declined dramatically over the past 30 years, in other words, if you are born rich you are more likely to stay rich; if you are born poor, you are more likely to stay poor.
If we are to have more social mobility, getting rid of the royal family sends a good message: that if you work hard, you will be rewarded. Rather than letting a load of not-very-bright inbreds leech off the rest of us. I didn’t think it was that opaque…
[quote]majicka wrote:
You missed the point about schools, I don’t know how you could not think that we don’t live in a rigid society! Too many people get jobs because of where they went to school, who they know etc. rather than actual ability. Social mobility has declined dramatically over the past 30 years, in other words, if you are born rich you are more likely to stay rich; if you are born poor, you are more likely to stay poor.
If we are to have more social mobility, getting rid of the royal family sends a good message: that if you work hard, you will be rewarded. Rather than letting a load of not-very-bright inbreds leech off the rest of us. I didn’t think it was that opaque…
[/quote]
So you blame the Royal Family for our education woes ??
Wanna blame the weather on them to ?
Come now, you or i have just a good a chance of getting rich just work hard and not be silly with your money !
Just finished college (minus exam results) and i hope to be rich someday… because i didn’t go to *** college your saying the chances of it are slim to none ?
Better off on the dole then with that attitude.
[quote]majicka wrote:
You missed the point about schools, I don’t know how you could not think that we don’t live in a rigid society! Too many people get jobs because of where they went to school, who they know etc. rather than actual ability. Social mobility has declined dramatically over the past 30 years, in other words, if you are born rich you are more likely to stay rich; if you are born poor, you are more likely to stay poor.
If we are to have more social mobility, getting rid of the royal family sends a good message: that if you work hard, you will be rewarded. Rather than letting a load of not-very-bright inbreds leech off the rest of us. I didn’t think it was that opaque…
[/quote]
You’re absolutely right about the decline of social mobility in both the UK and US, but it has nothing to do with the royal family. The fact that the same thing is happening over here should be a bit of a tip-off.
[quote]majicka wrote:
You missed the point about schools, I don’t know how you could not think that we don’t live in a rigid society! Too many people get jobs because of where they went to school, who they know etc. rather than actual ability. Social mobility has declined dramatically over the past 30 years, in other words, if you are born rich you are more likely to stay rich; if you are born poor, you are more likely to stay poor.
If we are to have more social mobility, getting rid of the royal family sends a good message: that if you work hard, you will be rewarded. Rather than letting a load of not-very-bright inbreds leech off the rest of us. I didn’t think it was that opaque…
[/quote]
In every country that moves towards socialism social mobilitzy grinds to a halt.
How is that the Queens fault though?
Thank you good people.
And thank you to the others watching this thread for not insulting the Queen anymore.
Its greatly appreciated.
Long live our friendship.
Lol, I never said it was the Queen’s fault. It’s just my opinion that it would be a good first step to improving social mobility. I don’t think having a royal dynasty, who don’t work for a living (with the exception of Charles to a degree) is a good example to set.
As a result of the aristocracy and our history the class system is far more entrenched than in the US. There’s not the same aspirational mindset that a lot of Americans have over here, you were supposed to ‘know your place’ and not aspire to anything more. It has got better but there’s still way too many jobs where the ‘old school tie’ can get you a job, certainly at my university I knew lots of people who got jobs through their parents contacts, rather than on merit… on the hand maybe it’s the same everywhere.
It’s perhaps a bit of a simplification but surely the sign of a society with real social mobility is when the rich can move ‘down’ and the poor ‘up’?