Why do Liberals want America to be like Europe?

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

I dunno, she doesn't do anything except travel and smoke cigarettes, don't care much about her. She's mainly a figure of denmark, and if you're australian you definently know where denmark lies and what our queen is called because some girl frmo australia married the danish crown-prince. She's the face to the world, allthough i don't know how good the royal family is doing it. I can't tell you how much they earn us from travelling around the world, but the gain us alot of goodwill. They cost us about 9$ million every year.

I'm willing to bet that $9 million is a gross exaggeration. Usually royalists only cite a specific number that relates to their staff and other "necessities" and forget about all the other perks, security, loss of revenue due to the God-Queen living in palaces that could be open to full tourism, etc.

She's there to keep danish conservatives happy (old people and the more nationalistic all care about her, those are the conservatives). I wouldn't mind if whe went.

She's there because the people believe in superior bloodlines.

What's sad is that poverty still exists in america they way it does today.

It's not as if this is unique to America. I mean, poor French people are burning alive in infernos. The minorities in Europe are forced to be poor.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
I'm not even gonna comment on poverty in europe as it's just stupid
And it's not about believing in the royality, it's just a gathering point of some kind. Much like identifying with that once danes were vikings and the dutch windmills. And they don't have any power at all.

You are so naive. No poverty in Europe? LOL!

 

[Forsythe]

Hehe, i was wondering when you'd turn up and threadcrap

Well, in those 9 million the maintenance of the buildings they live in aren't included, as they would have to be maintained anyway.
But remember, 9 million is only what i costs to keep them running.

Did you check your local mental hospital yet?

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Lol, quote me what you posted and name me _one_ argument!

It wasn't intended to be an argument, it was a statement of fact.

How's your queen, btw?

:laugh: It's so sad that 'queens' and 'kings' exist to this day.

I dunno, she doesn't do anything except travel and smoke cigarettes, don't care much about her. She's mainly a figure of denmark, and if you're australian you definently know where denmark lies and what our queen is called because some girl frmo australia married the danish crown-prince. She's the face to the world, allthough i don't know how good the royal family is doing it. I can't tell you how much they earn us from travelling around the world, but the gain us alot of goodwill. They cost us about 9$ million every year.
She's there to keep danish conservatives happy (old people and the more nationalistic all care about her, those are the conservatives). I wouldn't mind if whe went.
What's sad is that poverty still exists in america they way it does today.

The poverty in Europe is pretty sad, too. However, the belief in a queen and king is ridiculous, IMO. It's just more of the sheep-like mentality of many Europeans.

If you study a little bit what's the function of a queen or king in modern constitutional monarchies you'll soon find out why they are still there. I actually don't like Royal families because often, in many countries, they become gossip targets, and I hate gossips. But in countries where there still is a royal family doing its job (most Scandinavian, Belgium countries) nothing really changes with a republic. Actually the veto power a king or queen still has in some of them is a pretty clever way to avoid any possibility of democracy sliding into dictature. They are somewhat the watchdogs over the real powers, but can raise an eyebrow on some decisions and buy some time for collective reflection.

I still prefer republics, but it's just a formal difference, and anybody who actually takes some time to read the specific power these kings and queens have would understand it.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe
I'm not even gonna comment on poverty in europe as it's just stupid
And it's not about believing in the royality, it's just a gathering point of some kind. Much like identifying with that once danes were vikings and the dutch windmills. And they don't have any power at all.

You are so naive. No poverty in Europe? LOL!

Where did i say there is no poverty in europe? Please putline it.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Lol, quote me what you posted and name me _one_ argument!

It wasn't intended to be an argument, it was a statement of fact.

How's your queen, btw?

:laugh: It's so sad that 'queens' and 'kings' exist to this day.

I dunno, she doesn't do anything except travel and smoke cigarettes, don't care much about her. She's mainly a figure of denmark, and if you're australian you definently know where denmark lies and what our queen is called because some girl frmo australia married the danish crown-prince. She's the face to the world, allthough i don't know how good the royal family is doing it. I can't tell you how much they earn us from travelling around the world, but the gain us alot of goodwill. They cost us about 9$ million every year.
She's there to keep danish conservatives happy (old people and the more nationalistic all care about her, those are the conservatives). I wouldn't mind if whe went.
What's sad is that poverty still exists in america they way it does today.

The poverty in Europe is pretty sad, too. However, the belief in a queen and king is ridiculous, IMO. It's just more of the sheep-like mentality of many Europeans.

If you study a little bit what's the function of a queen or king in modern constitutional monarchies you'll soon find out why they are still there. I actually don't like Royal families because often, in many countries, they become gossip targets, and I hate gossips. But in countries where there still is a royal family doing its job (most Scandinavian, Belgium countries) nothing really changes with a republic. Actually the veto power a king or queen still has in some of them is a pretty clever way to avoid any possibility of democracy sliding into dictature. They are somewhat the watchdogs over the real powers, but can raise an eyebrow on some decisions and buy some time for collective reflection.

I still prefer republics, but it's just a formal difference, and anybody who actually takes some time to read the specific power these kings and queens have would understand it.

Actually the legislative power they have is very unclear. They might have the ability to veto laws, but have never done so, and will never do so.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Hehe, i was wondering when you'd turn up and threadcrap

Well, in those 9 million the maintenance of the buildings they live in aren't included, as they would have to be maintained anyway.
But remember, 9 million is only what i costs to keep them running.

Did you check your local mental hospital yet?

So, please list what's in the $9 million. Do you have a link? I'm imagining that this is leaving out many details. Does the $9 million include helicopter rides for the God-Queen?

Imagine if you opened up the palaces, artwork, jewels, etc to the public. I think that it would generate a lot of tourism money, much more than the novelty of having a God-Queen. France has a nice tourism industry in regards to its palaces without their government subjecting themselves to the concept of royalty.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe
I'm not even gonna comment on poverty in europe as it's just stupid
And it's not about believing in the royality, it's just a gathering point of some kind. Much like identifying with that once danes were vikings and the dutch windmills. And they don't have any power at all.

You are so naive. No poverty in Europe? LOL!

Poverty in Europe is lower than in the US, just like is extreme richness. That is the target of most policies, after all.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Lol, quote me what you posted and name me _one_ argument!

It wasn't intended to be an argument, it was a statement of fact.

How's your queen, btw?

:laugh: It's so sad that 'queens' and 'kings' exist to this day.

I dunno, she doesn't do anything except travel and smoke cigarettes, don't care much about her. She's mainly a figure of denmark, and if you're australian you definently know where denmark lies and what our queen is called because some girl frmo australia married the danish crown-prince. She's the face to the world, allthough i don't know how good the royal family is doing it. I can't tell you how much they earn us from travelling around the world, but the gain us alot of goodwill. They cost us about 9$ million every year.
She's there to keep danish conservatives happy (old people and the more nationalistic all care about her, those are the conservatives). I wouldn't mind if whe went.
What's sad is that poverty still exists in america they way it does today.

The poverty in Europe is pretty sad, too. However, the belief in a queen and king is ridiculous, IMO. It's just more of the sheep-like mentality of many Europeans.

If you study a little bit what's the function of a queen or king in modern constitutional monarchies you'll soon find out why they are still there. I actually don't like Royal families because often, in many countries, they become gossip targets, and I hate gossips. But in countries where there still is a royal family doing its job (most Scandinavian, Belgium countries) nothing really changes with a republic. Actually the veto power a king or queen still has in some of them is a pretty clever way to avoid any possibility of democracy sliding into dictature. They are somewhat the watchdogs over the real powers, but can raise an eyebrow on some decisions and buy some time for collective reflection.

I still prefer republics, but it's just a formal difference, and anybody who actually takes some time to read the specific power these kings and queens have would understand it.

Actually the legislative power they have is very unclear. They might have the ability to veto laws, but have never done so, and will never do so.

In many countries they have power to veto laws THREE times, before being forced to accept them. It's something they should do if they think somebody is trying to pass a law that doesn't fit the tradition of a country, its values etc etc... so that the public can stop and think about it a little more.

This is NO legislative power. It's a little power in limiting the executive.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Tango
Actually the veto power a king or queen still has in some of them is a pretty clever way to avoid any possibility of democracy sliding into dictature.

The monarchy provides access to dictatorship as well.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe
I'm not even gonna comment on poverty in europe as it's just stupid
And it's not about believing in the royality, it's just a gathering point of some kind. Much like identifying with that once danes were vikings and the dutch windmills. And they don't have any power at all.

You are so naive. No poverty in Europe? LOL!

Where did i say there is no poverty in europe? Please putline it.

Then why is it so stupid to discuss it?

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Lol, quote me what you posted and name me _one_ argument!

It wasn't intended to be an argument, it was a statement of fact.

How's your queen, btw?

:laugh: It's so sad that 'queens' and 'kings' exist to this day.

I dunno, she doesn't do anything except travel and smoke cigarettes, don't care much about her. She's mainly a figure of denmark, and if you're australian you definently know where denmark lies and what our queen is called because some girl frmo australia married the danish crown-prince. She's the face to the world, allthough i don't know how good the royal family is doing it. I can't tell you how much they earn us from travelling around the world, but the gain us alot of goodwill. They cost us about 9$ million every year.
She's there to keep danish conservatives happy (old people and the more nationalistic all care about her, those are the conservatives). I wouldn't mind if whe went.
What's sad is that poverty still exists in america they way it does today.

The poverty in Europe is pretty sad, too. However, the belief in a queen and king is ridiculous, IMO. It's just more of the sheep-like mentality of many Europeans.

If you study a little bit what's the function of a queen or king in modern constitutional monarchies you'll soon find out why they are still there. I actually don't like Royal families because often, in many countries, they become gossip targets, and I hate gossips. But in countries where there still is a royal family doing its job (most Scandinavian, Belgium countries) nothing really changes with a republic. Actually the veto power a king or queen still has in some of them is a pretty clever way to avoid any possibility of democracy sliding into dictature. They are somewhat the watchdogs over the real powers, but can raise an eyebrow on some decisions and buy some time for collective reflection.

I still prefer republics, but it's just a formal difference, and anybody who actually takes some time to read the specific power these kings and queens have would understand it.

Actually the legislative power they have is very unclear. They might have the ability to veto laws, but have never done so, and will never do so.

In many countries they have power to veto laws THREE times, before being forced to accept them. It's something they should do if they think somebody is trying to pass a law that doesn't fit the tradition of a country, its values etc etc... so that the public can stop and think about it a little more.

This is NO legislative power. It's a little power in limiting the executive.

Ok, in denmark it's one time, and if the law is still passed in our parlament she's outta there. But it's very unclear whether she actually has the power. But nothing has changed regarding that since 1849 where denmark became a constitutional monarchy.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Tango
Actually the veto power a king or queen still has in some of them is a pretty clever way to avoid any possibility of democracy sliding into dictature.

The monarchy provides access to dictatorship as well.

Yes, they can. In Mussolini's Italy this happened. That's why you don't have a monarchy in Italy anymore. The king had the power to oppose him, and choose not to. But the current power some queens and kings have to limit the executive could be usefull. Still, I would not like to live in a gossip-prone monarchy like england. But that's just me: I hate any kind of gossips and just dislike all the people reading those tabloid...

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Tango

Yes, they can. In Mussolini's Italy this happened. That's why you don't have a monarchy in Italy anymore. The king had the power to oppose him, and choose not to. But the current power some queens and kings have to limit the executive could be usefull. Still, I would not like to live in a gossip-prone monarchy like england. But that's just me: I hate any kind of gossips and just dislike all the people reading those tabloid...

I don't see why the power to limit the executive must be passed on by bloodline only. Just because you abolish the monarchy does not necessarily mean you have to lose that abilty.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Hehe, i was wondering when you'd turn up and threadcrap

Well, in those 9 million the maintenance of the buildings they live in aren't included, as they would have to be maintained anyway.
But remember, 9 million is only what i costs to keep them running.

Did you check your local mental hospital yet?

So, please list what's in the $9 million. Do you have a link? I'm imagining that this is leaving out many details. Does the $9 million include helicopter rides for the God-Queen?

Imagine if you opened up the palaces, artwork, jewels, etc to the public. I think that it would generate a lot of tourism money, much more than the novelty of having a God-Queen. France has a nice tourism industry in regards to its palaces without their government subjecting themselves to the concept of royalty.

Come on... there is nobody subject to any royality.... even in monarchies you are suject to the willings of the prime minister or the president much more...

You want to know why in some countries they are still there, even if with no power?

Just think on the way in wich monarchies were transformed in republics. You think this could happen now? You actually want this to happen now? It's gonna cost you WAAAAAY more than 9 millions, or 9 billions for that matter....

I imagine the Wall Street Journal opening with news that a revolution against the king of Spain erupted... I wouldn't be nice....

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Tango

Yes, they can. In Mussolini's Italy this happened. That's why you don't have a monarchy in Italy anymore. The king had the power to oppose him, and choose not to. But the current power some queens and kings have to limit the executive could be usefull. Still, I would not like to live in a gossip-prone monarchy like england. But that's just me: I hate any kind of gossips and just dislike all the people reading those tabloid...

I don't see why the power to limit the executive must be passed on by bloodline only. Just because you abolish the monarchy does not necessarily mean you have to lose that abilty.

I never thought i'd hear anything of quality pass from your mouth But here it is.
That's a very valid point, and that's what me, and my political party, is fighting for.
Th reason for it is tradition, and the fact that many people don't even know that, and they will most likely never use it.
And as i said, the laws are frmo 1849 and are terribly outdated, and should be renewed.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Hehe, i was wondering when you'd turn up and threadcrap

Well, in those 9 million the maintenance of the buildings they live in aren't included, as they would have to be maintained anyway.
But remember, 9 million is only what i costs to keep them running.

Did you check your local mental hospital yet?

So, please list what's in the $9 million. Do you have a link? I'm imagining that this is leaving out many details. Does the $9 million include helicopter rides for the God-Queen?

Imagine if you opened up the palaces, artwork, jewels, etc to the public. I think that it would generate a lot of tourism money, much more than the novelty of having a God-Queen. France has a nice tourism industry in regards to its palaces without their government subjecting themselves to the concept of royalty.

Come on... there is nobody subject to any royality.... even in monarchies you are suject to the willings of the prime minister or the president much more...

You want to know why in some countries they are still there, even if with no power?

Just think on the way in wich monarchies were transformed in republics. You think this could happen now? You actually want this to happen now? It's gonna cost you WAAAAAY more than 9 millions, or 9 billions for that matter....

I imagine the Wall Street Journal opening with news that a revolution against the king of Spain erupted... I wouldn't be nice....

I don't think it would cost $9 billion to abolish monarchies. Where did you get such a ridiculous number from? I actually think that they would generate more money by abolishing them.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Tango

Yes, they can. In Mussolini's Italy this happened. That's why you don't have a monarchy in Italy anymore. The king had the power to oppose him, and choose not to. But the current power some queens and kings have to limit the executive could be usefull. Still, I would not like to live in a gossip-prone monarchy like england. But that's just me: I hate any kind of gossips and just dislike all the people reading those tabloid...

I don't see why the power to limit the executive must be passed on by bloodline only. Just because you abolish the monarchy does not necessarily mean you have to lose that abilty.

Yes. In many parlamentar republics it's the president having the same power. As I posted above, the problem is that you just CANNOT abolish a monarchy...
You would rewrite the whole constitution, state laws etc etc, not to mention pass through a civil war just to get rid of a couple of guys with no power?

It's just the european version of Hollywood...

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Hehe, i was wondering when you'd turn up and threadcrap

Well, in those 9 million the maintenance of the buildings they live in aren't included, as they would have to be maintained anyway.
But remember, 9 million is only what i costs to keep them running.

Did you check your local mental hospital yet?

So, please list what's in the $9 million. Do you have a link? I'm imagining that this is leaving out many details. Does the $9 million include helicopter rides for the God-Queen?

Imagine if you opened up the palaces, artwork, jewels, etc to the public. I think that it would generate a lot of tourism money, much more than the novelty of having a God-Queen. France has a nice tourism industry in regards to its palaces without their government subjecting themselves to the concept of royalty.

Come on... there is nobody subject to any royality.... even in monarchies you are suject to the willings of the prime minister or the president much more...

You want to know why in some countries they are still there, even if with no power?

Just think on the way in wich monarchies were transformed in republics. You think this could happen now? You actually want this to happen now? It's gonna cost you WAAAAAY more than 9 millions, or 9 billions for that matter....

I imagine the Wall Street Journal opening with news that a revolution against the king of Spain erupted... I wouldn't be nice....

I don't think it would cost $9 billion to abolish monarchies. Where did you get such a ridiculous number from? I actually think that they would generate more money by abolishing them.

Then, think a little more....

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Tango

Yes. In many parlamentar republics it's the president having the same power. As I posted above, the problem is that you just CANNOT abolish a monarchy...
You would rewrite the whole constitution, state laws etc etc, not to mention pass through a civil war just to get rid of a couple of guys with no power?

Pass through a civil war to get rid of a monarchy? Australia simply had a vote on it and they almost abolished it. It didn't seem that they were on the brink of civil war.

It's just the european version of Hollywood...

It's nothing like Hollywood other than they're celebrities, but monarchies are government-mandated celebrities. I see many Europeans say this as some sort of excuse. Nothing is farther than the truth. Hollywood actors are not recognized by the government as something more special than anyone else. They do not pass positions by blood. They pay taxes. They do not live in government buildings. They are not given free money by the government to run their household staff. Their positions are not based upon discriminatory beliefs.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Tango

Then, think a little more....

I recently had a lobotomy and lost 35% of my brain. Please think for me in the form of a post.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Tango

Yes. In many parlamentar republics it's the president having the same power. As I posted above, the problem is that you just CANNOT abolish a monarchy...
You would rewrite the whole constitution, state laws etc etc, not to mention pass through a civil war just to get rid of a couple of guys with no power?

Pass through a civil war to get rid of a monarchy? Australia simply had a vote on it and they almost abolished it. It didn't seem that they were on the brink of civil war.

It's just the european version of Hollywood...

It's nothing like Hollywood other than they're celebrities, but monarchies are government-mandated celebrities. I see many Europeans say this as some sort of excuse. Nothing is farther than the truth. Hollywood actors are not recognized by the government as something more special than anyone else. They do not pass positions by blood. They pay taxes. They do not live in government buildings. They are not given free money by the government to run their household staff. Their positions are not based upon discriminatory beliefs.

Well, you would be surprised to know that royal families pay taxes too. Some of them have regular jobs aside from beein a royalty (Sweden, Belgium)... Again: given the possibility to choose I would get a republic ANY day. But you should recalculate the cost of getting rid of a WHOLE constitutional order.

99% of the monarchies abdicated in cause of blood events, revolutions, wars... Even if you get a chance to just vote them away, you would have to recreate a whole burocratic complex, rewrite a constitution etc etc

Do you understand the IMMENSE financial value of this process? Capitals being flown out of the country, financial analysts downgrading the Debt rating on the bonds emitted untill things are more clear, a new electoral law system, elections to be planned, a lot of procedures to be rethought....

Wow... I tell you: nobody really cares about them enought to pay for this... they really have no power, and because of this nobody is against them. That's the best test: if you think someone is actually in the position to do something, count his enemies... most people even like them (and this makes me sick) because of the nice relations they have with all sort of formula-1 pilots, actors, bullfighters and pop-star. But nobody ever told you a royalty was involved in a REAL balance of power issue.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Tango

Then, think a little more....

I recently had a lobotomy and lost 35% of my brain. Please think for me in the form of a post.

LOL
I'm sorry, I didn't want to be troll-ish... If I sounded like a flame, then I apologize...

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: rickn
I don't want america to be like europe, I do want a hot blond Swedish girl though

europe has history and culture, but they're way to backwards for my liking. good place to vacation, but I wouldn't wanna live like them for any longer than 2 weeks

As in making a big fuss over a nipple on tv but not over a war started on false intel, thick headed diplomacy, and out right corrupt behavior ? I'd love to see Bush be made accountable to answer non-scripted questions and go through the grilling like Blair went through publicly in parliment before and after the war.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Cliff Notes?

Liberals want to be what they claim to be. not a bunch of fake puzzys.