More Royal caca!

[Insidious Von]

So I woke up this morning with the news that the British Royals are expecting a second child - oh great!

Royalty and religion are two archaic institutions that need to be eliminated before humanity can achieve a higher purpose. How can William live with himself knowing that his father sanctioned his mother's death. It was all very convenient.

I would laugh uproariously if the child came out black.

 

[danmand]

Why would they not have lots of children. They are guaranteed a life in luxurious welfare.

 

[oldjones]

Why would the media not alert the many folks who—unlike you guys—are happy for the couple and the news?

What's archaic is taking this stuff so seriously.

 

[danmand]

Why would the media not alert the many folks who—unlike you guys—are happy for the couple and the news?

What's archaic is taking this stuff so seriously.

It is the hypocracy that gets us. All the folksd like you that are unwilling to pay welfare to disadvantaged people are sooooo happy to give luxurious support for life to somebody whos only achievement is that he or she came through Kate's birth canal.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Why would the media not alert the many folks who—unlike you guys—are happy for the couple and the news?

What's archaic is taking this stuff so seriously.

I think they are a lovely couple (she's dazzling). Prince George is so cute, I wanna eat those cheeks. Hey, have your kids while you're young and healthy no? Especially when they have no financial restraints, as pointed out by Danmand.

IV, I question whether there was a conspiracy in Diana's death.

 

[oldjones]

It is the hypocracy that gets us. All the folksd like you that are unwilling to pay welfare to disadvantaged people are sooooo happy to give luxurious support for life to somebody whos only achievement is that he or she came through Kate's birth canal.

Whoever says I'm unwilling to pay welfare to disadvantaged folks hasnm't been keeping up. More taxes! More pay outs! More Equality! Less Disadvantage!

But now that the brigandage is long past I think all that Royal stuff is quaint and amusing and that keeping it around should remind us of how horribly bad it sometimes was and how we should only be serious about making sure we never let things fall back to that level. The more often they parade in foolish hats and gold braid the better.

It's the ones in business suits talking 'enhanced interrogations' and 'common sense revolutions' as they pander for directorships and board seats we must despise and be wary of. The less we accord them their Hail to The Chiefs and personal planes the clearer we see them.

 

[buttercup]

It is the hypocracy that gets us. All the folksd like you that are unwilling to pay welfare to disadvantaged people are sooooo happy to give luxurious support for life to somebody whos only achievement is that he or she came through Kate's birth canal.

Danmand, baby, untwist those knickers. Given that our constitutionally-limited monarch is the head of the Canadian state, who would you now like to be given that status, instead? Harper? A representative of a particular political party? Who?

Instead of shouting your "I demand change" message from the rooftops, let us hear your sensible proposals as to just what changes you are advocating, and how those changes might be put into effect. You could explain why you think most Canadians would prefer your new system over our present constitutional monarchy. You could explain how the changes you have in mind would be put into effect smoothly and without leading to civil war (as such changes have had a habit of doing).

Given how loudly and consistently you shout against our consitutional monarchy, we are prepared to assume that you have carried out the necessary research, and you have a carefully-detailed plan that shows that/how your changes could be done smoothly, and that/how I and other Canadians would be better off after your changes. Convince us.

 

[danmand]

Danmand, baby, untwist those knickers. Given that our constitutionally-limited monarch is the head of the Canadian state, who would you now like to be given that status, instead? Harper? A representative of a particular political party? Who?

Instead of shouting your "I demand change" message from the rooftops, let us hear your sensible proposals as to just what changes you are advocating, and how those changes might be put into effect. You could explain why you think most Canadians would prefer your new system over our present constitutional monarchy. You could explain how the changes you have in mind would be put into effect smoothly and without leading to civil war (as such changes have had a habit of doing).

Given how loudly and consistently you shout against our consitutional monarchy, we are prepared to assume that you have carried out the necessary research, and you have a carefully-detailed plan that shows that/how your changes could be done smoothly, and that/how I and other Canadians would be better off after your changes. Convince us.

It is excruciatingly simple. Elect a head of state as the majority of countries do. Is that so hard to imagine?

Take a look at the constitutions for Germany, France, Italy, Mexico, etc etc

 

[Insidious Von]

IV, I question whether there was a conspiracy in Diana's death.

It was waaay to convenient and coincidental for it not to be an inside job. I'll never believe that it was an accident.

 

[Insidious Von]

Here is the father of Kate's second child. After all he does have a Louisville Slugger...and you can tell that she digs him.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1741082624/nm0252961?ref_=nmmd_md_nxt

 

[oldjones]

It is excruciatingly simple. Elect a head of state as the majority of countries do. Is that so hard to imagine?

Take a look at the constitutions for Germany, France, Italy, Mexico, etc etc

Yeah, none of them have ever 'elected' brutal dictators or war mongers or guys that could only be removed by revolution<sarcasm font>. That is the advantage of electing your head of state, so I'm told.

Frankly it doesn't matter how the Head of State is selected, as long as you get someone good, who brings out the good in the nation. When you can tell us we've discovered a reliable way to do that, I'll know the End of Days and The Rapture are nigh. But the record says election isn't that method, nmot yet.

Until then the focus should be on damage limitation, because our electoral choices are so often bad†. That's where election does have an edge, as long as there's someone on top who is not elected, to keep things honest and ensure there is a next election.

And you can hope making the Head of Government just some guy who lives down the way at number 24 will keep him or her mindful that the job is service, not command.

Not that our amateur Royals in Rideau Hall have been any good at reminding the guy down the road, but it doesn't hurt to have them there
---------------
† See: Ford, Harper, Bush II, PET, Blair, Berlusconi. However Putin Pres1., PM, Pres2. would be examples of not having someone on top to call foul.

 

[danmand]

Yeah, none of them have ever 'elected' brutal dictators or war mongers or guys that could only be removed by revolution. That is the advantage of electing your head of state, so I'm told.

Frankly it doesn't matter how the Head of State is selected, as long as you get someone good, who brings out the good in the nation. When you can tell us we've discovered a reliable way to do that, I'll know the End of Days and The Rapture are nigh. But the record says election isn't that method, nmot yet.

Until then the focus should be on damage limitation, because our electoral choices are so often bad†. That's where election does have an edge, as long as there's someone on top who is not elected, to keep things honest and ensure there is a next election.
---------------
† See: Ford, Harper, Bush II, PET, Blair, Berlusconi. However Putin Pres1., PM, Pres2. would be examples of not having someone on top to call foul.

I understand that you and many others favour heriditary positions over democratic elections. That is your right. I think otherwise, I think it is an affront to fundamental human rights and common sense.

I wonder if you also are in favour of other positions being hereditary, as in Mayors, police chiefs, judges, lawyers, etc etc. After all, you claim it is tho only way to get a sensible person as head of state. (actually, I will leave it to you to find examples of kings that were less than sensible.)

 

[oldjones]

I understand that you and many others favour heriditary positions over democratic elections. That is your right. I think otherwise, I think it is an affront to fundamental human rights and common sense.

I wonder if you also are in favour of other positions being hereditary, as in Mayors, police chiefs, judges, lawyers, etc etc. After all, you claim it is tho only way to get a sensible person as head of state. (actually, I will leave it to you to find examples of kings that were less than sensible.)

Goodness. You're alone in suggesting any general preference for hereditary positions over elected ones. Even for Head of State.

But apart from your oft-stated dislike of expensive inherited privilege, I can't think where you've offered a persuasive argument against hereditary monarchy. My view is more like, it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As to your other, 'real' jobs that are inherited, may I point to the Ford Motor Company and IBM as two large examples, and there are any number of other companies inherited, by competent and incompetent alike. Any sociologist, political scientist or business could cite reams of studies showing inheritance as a major determinant in achieving influential office in every field. All the monarchists did—and only quite recently—was eliminate the combat and bloodshed—on the way there. Quite civilized.

As to listing less than sensible kings, I've already listed less than admirable or moral elected leaders (and minded Godwin's Law) surely it's your turn to show that human weakness is indeed everywhere, even among crowned heads. But all that will prove is that elected or inherited, our Heads of State will always be just like us.

Pointless to focus on how they get the job. It's like arguing all hiring must be from anonymous exams. It's how we manage them in that job—and fail to—that we should be thinking about.

 

[danmand]

Goodness. You're alone in suggesting any general preference for hereditary positions over elected ones. Even for Head of State.

But apart from your oft-stated dislike of expensive inherited privilege, I can't think where you've offered a persuasive argument against hereditary monarchy. My view is more like, it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As to your other, 'real' jobs that are inherited, may I point to the Ford Motor Company and IBM as two large examples, and there are any number of other companies inherited, by competent and incompetent alike. Any sociologist, political scientist or business could cite reams of studies showing inheritance as a major determinant in achieving influential office in every field. All the monarchists did—and only quite recently—was eliminate the combat and bloodshed—on the way there. Quite civilized.

As to listing less than sensible kings, I've already listed less than admirable or moral elected leaders (and minded Godwin's Law) surely it's your turn to show that human weakness is indeed everywhere, even among crowned heads. But all that will prove is that elected or inherited, our Heads of State will always be just like us.

Pointless to focus on how they get the job. It's like arguing all hiring must be from anonymous exams. It's how we manage them in that job—and fail to—that we should be thinking about.

Of course, there are jobs that seem to go from one generation to the next. Money gives power. Two of my friends from university took over companies from their father (and grandfather), One runs Lego, another runs Rockwool (Roxul in Canada).

The essential difference, which I guess you have missed is that hiring of people and inheritence of shares in companies are not privileges in our constitution, unless you favour confiscation of inheritences. Equality before the law and before government is a fundamental right and privilege as written in theis most celebrated text:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[GPIDEAL]

It is excruciatingly simple. Elect a head of state as the majority of countries do. Is that so hard to imagine?

Take a look at the constitutions for Germany, France, Italy, Mexico, etc etc

I don't believe that we send money to the monarchy anymore. We may pay for their stay here, etc., but that's the extent of it. IN fact, didn't the Royal Family begin paying taxes a few years ago too?

 

[GPIDEAL]

It was waaay to convenient and coincidental for it not to be an inside job. I'll never believe that it was an accident.

Maybe. I don't delve into that tragic event as I have my hands full with the JFK assassination.

 

[Aardvark154]

What I love are that two of the people who are constantly trashing on the Monarchy are also two of the people who frequently trash on the United States. More than a bit of irony eh?

 

[danmand]

What I love are that two of the people who are constantly trashing on the Monarchy are also two of the people who frequently trash on the United States. More than a bit of irony eh?

Like yourself that are thrashing Denmark but loving the monarchy. Talk about irony.

The danis playwright Holberg who lived at the same time as Moliere had a character in one of his plays use similar logic to bring his mother to tears:
"Mother cannot fly, a stone cannot fly, ergo mother is a stone"

 

[Aardvark154]

Here is the father of Kate's second child. After all he does have a Louisville Slugger...and you can tell that she digs him.

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1741082624/nm0252961?ref_=nmmd_md_nxt

I rather suspect that Idris Elba, wouldn't find the above funny.

 

[Aardvark154]

Like yourself that are thrashing Denmark but loving the monarchy. Talk about irony.

If the shoe fits. There is of course that little term "constantly" which you choose to ignore. I pay probably more attention to Abraham Markoe and Alexander Hamilton having lived in the Danish West Indies, than anything else Danish.