Thoughts?
Particularly conservatives from the UK.
Hell, before I get ready to tear it to shears… Look what an ignorant electorate left us: O’Bummer. Twice.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Thoughts?
Particularly conservatives from the UK.
Hell, before I get ready to tear it to shears… Look what an ignorant electorate left us: O’Bummer. Twice.
[/quote]
The Royal Family costs the UK taxpayer $57mil a year. In contrast to the first family that costs the US taxpayer about $1.47bn a year. With this baby, the Royal Family injected $300mil into the economy.
So…I guess they make the UK a profit…?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Thoughts?
Particularly conservatives from the UK.
Hell, before I get ready to tear it to shears… Look what an ignorant electorate left us: O’Bummer. Twice.
[/quote]
The Royal Family costs the UK taxpayer $57mil a year. In contrast to the first family that costs the US taxpayer about $1.47bn a year. With this baby, the Royal Family injected $300mil into the economy.
So…I guess they make the UK a profit…?[/quote]
I am still pissed that we no longer have an emperor.
The money he could generate just by waving from a balcony…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but arent’ the royal powers significantly limited in the UK?
As in, the American president, through executive order is actually more of a king (or queen) than any royalty in the UK?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but arent’ the royal powers significantly limited in the UK?
As in, the American president, through executive order is actually more of a king (or queen) than any royalty in the UK?[/quote]
Absolutely. However, symbolism matters. The Brits acceptance of their status as subjects undergirds a culture accepting of their servitude. So in practice, having a queen is irrelevant until it carries over into the acceptance of the surveillance state, lack of cultural economic movement, etc.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Absolutely. However, symbolism matters. The Brits acceptance of their status as subjects undergirds a culture accepting of their servitude. So in practice, having a queen is irrelevant until it carries over into the acceptance of the surveillance state, lack of cultural economic movement, etc.[/quote]
Whereas we vociferously deny our status as subjects, and deny that we are in fact in servitude, whilst we daily toil in order to “service” the national debt.
Of course, denial is the first phase of the Kubler-Ross model, and acceptance is the last. So I guess it proves that Britain is the more moribund of our two societies.
Once you accept the premise that you are less than another by sheer accident of birth alone , all manner of unforeseen consequences arise. None of them good, unless you happen to be of ‘royal’ birth. So I say bollocks to monarchy. I don’t buy any of the arguments in favour of it.
As a UK conservative I am in favour of the monarchy purely for the pragmatic reason it boosts our economy.
They are a bargain in terms of value for money.
As far as their actual powers, they have none beyond the symbolic: The Queen giving the rubber stamp of Royal Assent to every legislative bill is simply done out of tradition, a monarch hasn’t rejected a bill since 1707.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Thoughts?
Particularly conservatives from the UK.
Hell, before I get ready to tear it to shears… Look what an ignorant electorate left us: O’Bummer. Twice.
[/quote]
The Royal Family costs the UK taxpayer $57mil a year. In contrast to the first family that costs the US taxpayer about $1.47bn a year. With this baby, the Royal Family injected $300mil into the economy.
So…I guess they make the UK a profit…?[/quote]
That’s OK, America has made a prophet. http://globetribune.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Jesus-H-Obama.jpg .
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but arent’ the royal powers significantly limited in the UK?
As in, the American president, through executive order is actually more of a king (or queen) than any royalty in the UK?[/quote]
Absolutely. However, symbolism matters. The Brits acceptance of their status as subjects undergirds a culture accepting of their servitude. So in practice, having a queen is irrelevant until it carries over into the acceptance of the surveillance state, lack of cultural economic movement, etc.[/quote]
Yep.
(Hey Mike, how goes it?)[/quote]
It comes, it goes. I’m enjoying the fight. I run my own law firm right now. Not too bad huh?
[quote]azc wrote:
As far as their actual powers, they have none beyond the symbolic: The Queen giving the rubber stamp of Royal Assent to every legislative bill is simply done out of tradition, a monarch hasn’t rejected a bill since 1707.[/quote]
true, but the Queen is unelected and has the power (but never uses it) to refuse to accept the results of a General Election, thus is able to reject the will of the people.
ergo, the UK isnt a democracy, and who in their right mind would be happy with that, regardless of how much money they bring in
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
the Queen is unelected and has the power … to refuse to accept the results of a General Election, thus is able to reject the will of the people. [/quote]
Exactly like the United States Supreme Court.
First, I think its great that the at least nominally first person in a country is not elected but born into it.
It takes away some social pressure.
Then, saying that a monarch only has “moral power” highly underestimates what a charismatic leader can do with that under the right circumstances.
In a time of crisis, a monarch, by simply uttering platitudes and leading by example can galvanize a nation.
When it comes to power and where it really lies, how much power has the Japanese emperor?
The answer is none, unless…
…unless he’s propped up by the United States government in exchange for preferential whaling treaties?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
…unless he’s propped up by the United States government in exchange for preferential whaling treaties?[/quote]
Well maybe that too.
But nobody knows how much power he has unless he chooses to voice an opinion.
[quote]bluebrasil wrote:
[quote]azc wrote:
As far as their actual powers, they have none beyond the symbolic: The Queen giving the rubber stamp of Royal Assent to every legislative bill is simply done out of tradition, a monarch hasn’t rejected a bill since 1707.[/quote]
true, but the Queen is unelected and has the power (but never uses it) to refuse to accept the results of a General Election, thus is able to reject the will of the people.
ergo, the UK isnt a democracy, and who in their right mind would be happy with that, regardless of how much money they bring in [/quote]
You can pin responsibility onto a monarch. In America, it’s the fault of Bush…even though he’s not president. If a Monarch gets out of hand you can replace them. Of course in America we replace our king every four to eight years, but they get to skip almost all responsibility.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but arent’ the royal powers significantly limited in the UK?
As in, the American president, through executive order is actually more of a king (or queen) than any royalty in the UK?[/quote]
Absolutely. However, symbolism matters. The Brits acceptance of their status as subjects undergirds a culture accepting of their servitude. So in practice, having a queen is irrelevant until it carries over into the acceptance of the surveillance state, lack of cultural economic movement, etc.[/quote]
Yep.
(Hey Mike, how goes it?)[/quote]
It comes, it goes. I’m enjoying the fight. I run my own law firm right now. Not too bad huh?[/quote]
What type of law do you focus on? Are you licensed only in ID?[/quote]
I run a general practice. It’s generally about 50% criminal 30% family 20% landlord/tenant.
Right now I’m only in Idaho, but when I get enough cash together and if I build enough clients in the states I’m going to get approved in Washington and Montana. I don’t need to take the exam. I just need to pay the state (go figure).