Royal Family

Stating that a person is a misanthropist adds to the debate, stating that they are ugly does not.

Brian
 
I wonder why it's perfectly acceptable to state that that the Old Testament God - the object of my race's worship (although not necessarily my own) is a misanthropic monster - that's perfectly fine.

Perhaps it's because members of the British Royal Family are real people and it's possible to prove that they exist?

When it comes down to it God and all the other gods, as far as we can know it, only exist as a person's strongly held opinion (aka faith).

Opinions can be challenged.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me it's more a case of: If you say something hurtful to others, it's perfectly defensible and , it's only reasonable - they should not be bothered, they should see it your way.
But if your feathers are ruffled, then the person doing so is being offensive and aggressive.
There is a concept called POV. It's also been poetically paraphrased as the following: Walk a mile in the other man's moccasins.
So you're point is - Brian and nanscombe, NOT that you take any offense at having one of your icons mocked - no no no - nothing like that.
And it's not that there is anything that could be construed as being aggressive/offensive at stating (and not that either of you did so - but you didn't make any noise about it:
I wouldn't want to be in the same place as Abraham or his God anyway. Abraham was a schizophrenic sociopath obsessed by killing and death. The Old Testament reveals God to be a hideous, misanthropist, monster.
-not just "misanthropic" as the quote somehow got watered down to in your retort; and one whose name countless thousands have died defending (even if in vain), countless others tortured and ruined because they wouldn't renounce Him, millions of others who have devoted their lives to his worship;
it is none of these things, it's just that the RF are actual people (who the vast majority of the people in this and alternate universes have never seen except in TV or photographs), and God may not be real to some, even though He is plenty real to multitudes of others.

Basically, if your ox is gored, shame on me, but if my ox is gored, tough titties.

Just let me know if this is your argument or if I've misconstrued something.
 
Last edited:
Libre said:
Basically, if your ox is gored, shame on me, but if my ox is gored, tough titties.

Just let me know if this is your argument or if I've misconstrued something.

Or maybe I just put forward a possible answer your question...



Libre said:
... I wonder why it's perfectly acceptable to state that that the Old Testament God - the object of my race's worship (although not necessarily my own) is a misanthropic monster - that's perfectly fine.

nanscombe said:
Perhaps it's because members of the British Royal Family are real people and it's possible to prove that they exist?

When it comes down to it God and all the other gods, as far as we can know it, only exist as a person's strongly held opinion (aka faith).

Opinions can be challenged.

As far as I remember, I haven't mentioned anything, one way or the other, about what you said about the Royal Family
 
No nanscombe - you absolutely did not. You simply weighed in and offered a possible answer to my question, as you said. I didn't really agree with your answer though, for the reasons I noted.
It's hard to keep everyone separate and not to confuse anyone here -
It's a little like a boxing match when you're fighting with multiple adversaries and with a hood over your head - tough to remember where all the punches are coming from.
 
Last edited:
Regardless of which Royal Family, regardless of which president, or which pope is the following offense to you, or would one be more offensive than the other?

[FONT=VERDANA, HELVETICA]-- Among planet Earth's most bizarre local customs is the Christmas tradition in Spain's Catalonia region of decorating Nativity scenes with figurines of famous people squatting and answering nature's calls. News of the Weird has noted that presidents (Bush and Obama) have been "honored" with posterior-baring statuettes, along with Queen Elizabeth. Right on cue this past Christmas, Spanish artists unveiled "caganers" in the images of Pope Francis and Nelson Mandela. (Perhaps the least-illogical explanation for the tradition is that if the manger is fertilized, the coming year's crops will flourish.) [Agence France-Presse via The Local (Rome), 11-16-2013] [/FONT]
 
IMO Monarchy is a flawed system but as implemented in Europe seems as good as any other.
 
At least we can get rid of our 1st families.
At least they have to move out at least every 8 years.
At least they are not monarchs.
At least they're accountable to the people.

We got rid of them until 2008. we'll see if he moves at the end of eight years, He acts like he is a king and he is not accountable to anyone even congress and especially the people.

Have a nice day :>)

Bladerunner
 
We can't get rid of them that's an illusion. We keep bring back the old tired re-treads. Any one here think Hillary or
Chelsea Clinton or Jeb bush, are not going to be anointed President? Get real people.

I agree, I think after Obamacare, 2016 will be different.

have a nice day:>)

Bladerunner
 
We can't get rid of them that's an illusion. We keep bring back the old tired re-treads. Any one here think Hillary or
Chelsea Clinton or Jeb bush, are not going to be anointed President? Get real people.

I wasn't aware that any of the above were President in the past, or that term limits had been abolished.
Maybe you mean that politically connected families have the inside track when it comes to getting nominations. I suppose they do. It surely helps to have name recognition in politics. There have been two Father/Son Presidents - the Adams and the Bushs. We can toss in the Roosevelts if you want - not Father/Son, but same extended family - although separated by many administrations in between.
The Tudors ruled England continuously from 1485 until 1603. The House of Windsor has been at the throne at least from 1917.

I never heard the name Obama before the 2004 Democratic convention. Never been an Obama in politics at all - as far as I had ever heard. Then the junior Senator from Illinois stood up and made a speech that got everyone's attention, and the next cycle he was elected POTUS. In 2016 he is definitely vacating the White House. Seems a little different kind of a system, to me, than the British monarchy. Whether the next first family is a Clinton or a Bush, or some other name, that is yet unknown. One thing is PRETTY certain though - it won't be a Christie!
 
Okay so here are the Republican candidates. Chris Christie Marco Rubio Sarah Palin Paul Ryan Rand Paul Jeb Bush Mike Huckabee.

Or for the very first time in American politics a WOMEN. We are already on a roll with the first African American president.

I wonder which way the American people will lean. Christy is cooked. Rubio maybe but, he will not have the Latino support because he's a Republican. Good luck with having a choice.
Christie's bacon is frying, Rubio is a maybe, Palin is from (and should remain on) another planet, Paul Ryan looks too much like Eddie Munster, Jeb is a Bush, Huckabee just screwed himself with his mouth and lost the female vote (permanenty I hope).
That leaves Rand Paul. I might actually support him. So there is a choice. Rand is unlike any other candidate ever - excepting his father Ron, but Rand has more potential to get enough of the mainstream vote.
Democratic nomination is also a big maybe - i guess Hillary will make a showing but her best chance was in 2008 - now she's in the frumpy category and that doesn't bode well for a female candidate, who would have to sell her sex appeal.
 
We did already have a woman candidate. Hillary Clinton ran in 2008 for the Democratic nomination.

Palin also has already run for nomination, but let's hope that never happens. :rolleyes:
 
I'm not really fussed about the Royal Family either way. I don't believe in all of the hype about them, but they're alright.
 
The Royal Family serve a purpose in the UK for Tourism, and that's about it, with regards to giving them Tax money, I believe the immediate Royal Family along with spouces and siblings should be given money, everybody else second cousins,,,etc, should go out and get a job, and if need be sign on to get their DHS money like the rest of us have to.
 
Civil list

...
Only The Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen Mother ever received direct funding from the Civil List.[1]
...
The Prince of Wales and his immediate family (Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and Prince Harry) received their income from the Duchy of Cornwall.
...
The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family were funded from a parliamentary annuity, the amount of which was fully refunded by the Queen to the treasury.
...
 
Unlike to day, thought King George III (not sure), was the government and made the decisions? Thats all, nothing else intended!

Have a nice day:>)

Bladerunner
 
That would seem to be the case, or at least that what George III would have liked of Parliament.

...
George's II successor, George III, sought to restore royal supremacy and absolute monarchy, but by the end of his reign the position of the king's ministers — who discovered that they needed the support of Parliament to enact any major changes — had become central to the role of British governance, and would remain so ever after.

During the first half of George III's reign, the monarch still had considerable influence over Parliament, which itself was dominated by the patronage and influence of the English nobility.
...
The American Revolutionary War ended in the defeat of a foreign policy seeking to forcibly restore the thirteen American colonies to British rule which King George III had fervently advocated, and in March 1782 the king was forced to appoint an administration led by his opponents which sought to curb royal patronage.
...
 
The youtube video posted a couple of pages earlier says that because of the income from their land the UK taxpayer makes a net profit from the royal family. But why is it "their" land? Only because their ancestors strong-armed it from the peasants. The people who farm that land could well be descended from those peasants and now they have to pay rent!

OK, so there's the whole touristy thing. Would tourists really stop coming if we stopped paying for the Royal Family? I reckon there are two fair ways of dealing with the royals.

The first is (kind of) tongue-in-cheek: If we have to have them, then let's all have a say in WHO they are. Let's have big televised Big-Brother style popularity contests. If we MUST have royals, then dammit I want my shot! :)

But really what I'd like to do is get rid of them. Not have them first against the wall when the revolution comes, nothing so drastic. Just stop paying. Let them keep their castles and estates, their stags, their corgis and their racehorses. But cut them loose. Stop the civil list and let them pay for their own security. We don't pay for the Beckhams!

Sure, old Lizzie Windsor has been 'selfless' in doing her 'duty' all these years. But why should it be her and her crew? Why not someone we get a say in?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom