Dumb Presidents or Racist Royals?

Closed Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Sarcasm - because beating the crap out of people is illegal
    Posts
    14,622

    No one has mentioned that Harry was also smoking a cigarette. What kind of example is he setting youngsters? After he has paid "compensation" to the offendees, which, apparently, include the entire country of Pakistan, he should give anti-smoking talks to all primary school children.

    In other news... According to a DM story, which no doubt will be accused of 'weightism' or that is 'fatism', some hospitals in the UK are having to enlarge doorways to accommodate severely obese expectant mothers. I feel a gamut of hurt feelings coming on.

    But in a 'real' news story, Amy Winehouse is getting a divorce. Back to sanity at last...

    (Why does anyone read these rags?)


  2. #32

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    hong kong
    Posts
    3,484
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigga:
    The difference between this and with public funding for presidents is that we don't need the royals.
    So looking back on Republics or Peoples Republics-
    We needed GW Bush, Nero, Qaddafi, Mugabe, Armadinajad, Kim Il Sung / Jung Il , Charles Taylor, Botha etc etc . For WHAT ???

    With the exception of Bush ( Money and Fear ) the others where elected NOT by the people, but by EXCLUDING the majority of the people and were / are funded by their own mandate to secure their own power base

    The UK Parliament has had more than 700 yrs to choose to exclude these " parasites " and chosen not to do so. Based upon excluding the wishes of the people ?? Nope - NO party has ever won popularity by slagging off the Royals. Not even when we have had the most unpopular of Monarchs or Prince of Wales.

    Maybe we should be like Iran, where the religious elite choose who should be able to stand for election and then exclude vast areas of the population from voting. Or Zimbabwe ? Or North Korea ( who are having elections with only one candidate ) ??

  3. #33

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Siu Sai Wan
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris:
    So looking back on Republics or Peoples Republics-
    We needed GW Bush, Nero, Qaddafi, Mugabe, Armadinajad, Kim Il Sung / Jung Il , Charles Taylor, Botha etc etc . For WHAT ???
    I can't help but think you left someone out.....

  4. #34

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Siu Sai Wan
    Posts
    1,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris:
    On the subject of racism
    Do Canadians feel racially slurred by the animated insults of South Park ?
    I am not sure that there is anyone that South Park has not, at least, tried to offend.

    Some chose to put ignore this type of thing, while others try to beat the drum until someone someone joins in (such as what happened with the cartoons in Denmark)

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Park Island
    Posts
    807

    [QUOTE=Boris;303745]

    The UK Parliament has had more than 700 yrs to choose to exclude these " parasites " and chosen not to do so. Based upon excluding the wishes of the people ?? Nope - NO party has ever won popularity by slagging off the Royals. Not even when we have had the most unpopular of Monarchs or Prince of Wales.
    QUOTE]


    Of course in order to remove the Monarchy an Act of Parliament would need to be passed...all Act's of Parliament require the approval of the Crown (officially). The Queen would effectively be signing the 'death warrant' (not literally speaking!) of the Royal Family...can't see her going for that...

    Of the course the only other option is a revolution


  6. #36

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,072
    Quote Originally Posted by shri:
    Pekkerhead - So its ok for Philip and Harry to set an example for the hoodie crowd?
    Of course they are in the wrong, but I fear that the hoodies (for which the word "paki" is most definitely already part of their vernacular, just as it already is in most parts of UK society) are more likely to be influenced by the behaviour of 50 Cent than by some laughable toff.

    Given the choice between some absolutely bonkers Royals with no real direct power that no one should take seriously, next to a dumbo with his finger on the nuclear launch button (which means you HAVE to take him seriously), I take the former anytime.
    Last edited by Pekkerhead; 12-01-2009 at 01:54 PM.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    hong kong
    Posts
    3,484
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielandHayley:
    Of the course the only other option is a revolution
    Done that 1642-1649
    Back to normal 1660. Now the only problems we have are people not concentrating in history lessons.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Park Island
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris:
    Done that 1642-1649
    Back to normal 1660. Now the only problems we have are people not concentrating in history lessons.
    I'm fully aware of that. I was merely pointing out that your statement that Parliament has had 700years to remove the Royal Family is misleading to some extent.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Gold Coast Marina
    Posts
    17,934

    I dunno where my post went - but I was agreeing with Boris!

    To me, the Royal Family are part of British history - a living history - which is rare in this world where the old is sacrificed like a heritage building in the way of a freeway.

    I don't see why we have to destroy our history and our traditions, particularly when they generate income and have no power to do evil anyway.


  10. #40

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    hong kong
    Posts
    3,484
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielandHayley:
    I'm fully aware of that. I was merely pointing out that your statement that Parliament has had 700years to remove the Royal Family is misleading to some extent.
    I suggest you research James the Second / William and Mary as to if the monarch has an indelible veto.