Off Topic Messages

Re: Dear British boardmembers

Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:09 pm

I seem to have logged onto Rednecks Anonymous in error...
Jules


I have you to know Julie that I don't keep the redneck in me anonymous!

I take a bath once per week in the creek (whether I need one or not), I keep the axle on my house serviced every year, I have a reserved stool at the local truck stop, and I likes to hunt possums (in my front yard of course), so Prince Chuckie better better stay away from these parts - he might wind up being stuffed & mounted over somebody's imitation fireplace! :P

Re: Dear British boardmembers

Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:11 pm

Big Boss Man wrote:I have you to know Julie


Dude, you're too ugly to call me 'Julie'!

:lol:

Jules

Re: Dear British boardmembers

Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am

familyjules wrote:
Sorry, I thought this was an Elvis message board...I seem to have logged onto Rednecks Anonymous in error...

:P

Jules


Jules -
One doesn't have to be a redneck to recognize the inappropriateness of the situation regarding Charles. We have absolutely no reason whatsoever to roll out the red carpet for him the way we did. He's not the head of state of your country, and the monarchy doesn't mean jack s#*t to us. But we did it out of respect for tradition. An outmoded tradition to be sure, but still a tradition that some continue to have a regard for. But he has no power or authority, just an opinion. Opinions are like a$$holes, everybody's got one (but some opinions are more informed than others), and we did not receive him like royalty so he could express his meaningless and clearly uninformed opinion.

Your own countrymen have recognized this.

Now, if Tony Blair or De Villipaine or the Russian president came here it would be appropriate for them to criticize us as they're the legitimate leaders of their respective countries.

Re: Dear British boardmembers

Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:53 am

Big Boss Man wrote:Prince Chuckie better better stay away from these parts - he might wind up being stuffed & mounted :P


Perhaps thats why he`s there :shock: :wink:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Dear British boardmembers

Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:49 am

I heard that Chaz & Camilla brought $40,000 worth of changes of clothes
and they are even touring the Katrina aftermath area
with their pomp & circumstance wardrobe entourage in tow.

snooty wealth-flaunting a**hole trash

- go back to Buckingham Palace.

as the song says:

Get the Fu*k Out.

I hope someone here in the US, within ear shot as they tour,
tells them off - and tells 'em off..royally.

Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:09 am

They're going to be here in California tomorrow (Saturday - My watch says that it's Saturday already in the UK). Anyway, maybe they'll take Arnold back with them when they leave!!
sue

Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:44 am

silver wrote:They're going to be here in California tomorrow (Saturday - My watch says that it's Saturday already in the UK). Anyway, maybe they'll take Arnold back with them when they leave!!
sue


But you didn't get him from the UK to begin with !

Strange how you in the US took Diana to your hearts !

She was just as rich & vain [and over-dressed].

But a tad more photogenic, I suspect.

Fickle lot !

Re: Dear British boardmembers

Sat Nov 05, 2005 10:35 am

Graceland Gardener wrote:I heard that Chaz & Camilla brought $40,000 worth of changes of clothes
and they are even touring the Katrina aftermath area
with their pomp & circumstance wardrobe entourage in tow.

snooty wealth-flaunting a**hole trash

- go back to Buckingham Palace.

as the song says:

Get the Fu*k Out.

I hope someone here in the US, within ear shot as they tour,
tells them off - and tells 'em off..royally.


To be fair, Charles isn't limiting his response to Katrina to a short tour as a photo op. One of his foundations is going to be involved in redevelopment work in the long term. That's certainly a more meaningful contribution.

Re: Dear British boardmembers

Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:25 pm

Pete Dube wrote:Jules -
One doesn't have to be a redneck to recognize the inappropriateness of the situation regarding Charles. We have absolutely no reason whatsoever to roll out the red carpet for him the way we did. He's not the head of state of your country, and the monarchy doesn't mean jack s#*t to us. But we did it out of respect for tradition. An outmoded tradition to be sure, but still a tradition that some continue to have a regard for. But he has no power or authority, just an opinion. Opinions are like a$$holes, everybody's got one (but some opinions are more informed than others), and we did not receive him like royalty so he could express his meaningless and clearly uninformed opinion.

Your own countrymen have recognized this.

Now, if Tony Blair or De Villipaine or the Russian president came here it would be appropriate for them to criticize us as they're the legitimate leaders of their respective countries.


At last - a fair, clearly stated argument with no name calling! Good man, Pete! I can see the logic in what you're saying here.

I want to add, by the way, that I'm no fan of the monarchy in Britain. So I wasn't in any way defending the concept of royalty. Just thought I'd make that clear.

Jules

Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:22 pm

ColinB wrote:
silver wrote:They're going to be here in California tomorrow (Saturday - My watch says that it's Saturday already in the UK). Anyway, maybe they'll take Arnold back with them when they leave!!
sue


But you didn't get him from the UK to begin with !

Strange how you in the US took Diana to your hearts !

She was just as rich & vain [and over-dressed].

But a tad more photogenic, I suspect.

Fickle lot !


Camilla is more Charles' age!! He should have married her to begin with. I think they have a lot more in common with each other. It's too bad the press here have given her a bit of a hard time as to her clothing!! You're right, clothes are not that important. And, I don't know where Arnold came from - I thought it was Austria! But then, I'm especially bad at geography (as you well know). He doesn't speak with an English accent!!
sue

Re: Dear British boardmembers

Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:05 pm

TJ wrote:To be fair, Charles isn't limiting his response to Katrina to a short tour as a photo op. One of his foundations is going to be involved in redevelopment work in the long term. That's certainly a more meaningful contribution.



TJ,

It was reported as a publicity trip.

In reaction, I may have been a bit harsh.
But I was in a bad mood -- not being invited to KHoot's party.
:x

Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:35 pm

Graceland Gardener wrote:how do you mean: crap?

Arabs do want all Jews destroyed.
The leader of Iran has just called for destruction of Israel.
Saddam wanted that too.
Palestinians try to kill Jews constantly.



So, everyone who´s got a score to settle with the jews or may kill a jew are nazis, is that what you´re saying? Comparing the nazis with the Iranian leader or the Arabs for that matter...I´m sure Hitler would turn in his grave...! Are you by any chance jewish yourself GG? Saddam Hussein a nazi...?? :roll:


Sincerely MB280E

Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:50 pm

MB280E

why do you have your bowels in an uproar about my comment?

are you muslim?....or a nazi?

:shock:

Re: Dear British boardmembers

Sat Nov 05, 2005 5:51 pm

familyjules wrote:At last - a fair, clearly stated argument with no name calling! Good man, Pete! I can see the logic in what you're saying here.


Well thank you Jules! Between your compliment and Colin's I'm on a roll. If I keep this up you guys will be crownin' me king!

familyjules wrote:I want to add, by the way, that I'm no fan of the monarchy in Britain. So I wasn't in any way defending the concept of royalty. Just thought I'd make that clear. Jules


Thanks for clearing that up, I was beginning to think you were a supporter of the monarchy.

Now I have a question for all of you U.K. folks. Why do you tolerate the monarchy? Judging from the comments on this thread there seems to be a disillusionment with the tradition. Can't you exert pressure on your leadership to start phasing it out? Or is there still widespread support for the monarchy?

Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:00 pm

MB280E wrote:
Graceland Gardener wrote:how do you mean: crap?

Arabs do want all Jews destroyed.
The leader of Iran has just called for destruction of Israel.
Saddam wanted that too.
Palestinians try to kill Jews constantly.



So, everyone who´s got a score to settle with the jews or may kill a jew are nazis, is that what you´re saying? Comparing the nazis with the Iranian leader or the Arabs for that matter...I´m sure Hitler would turn in his grave...! Are you by any chance jewish yourself GG? Saddam Hussein a nazi...?? :roll:


Sincerely MB280E


GG's right MB. Hussein and Iran have both advocated the annhilation of Israel particularly, and Jews in general, for decades. Both have spent multiple millions to fund this goal.

Very Nazi-esque.........wouldn't you say??? I don't guess GG was saying that the political ideologies involved here were all identical. But the goals certainly are.

Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:04 pm

Pete -

You wrote:
Now I have a question for all of you U.K. folks. Why do you tolerate the monarchy?
Judging from the comments on this thread there seems to be a disillusionment with the tradition.
Can't you exert pressure on your leadership to start phasing it out?
Or is there still widespread support for the monarchy?


That's three questions, actually.

Support fot the monarchy has been reducing significantly here each decade since the 50's.

Getting shot of them completely is a long-term thing.

The hereditary peers have been chucked out of the House of Lords.

So it's a start.

You also wrote:
Well thank you Jules! Between your compliment and Colin's I'm on a roll. If I keep this up you guys will be crownin' me king!


A compliment from me ?

You must have misread something.

Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:26 pm

ColinB wrote:
You've just moved up a few notches in my estimation of you !


Colin -
I took the quote above as complimentary.

Sun Nov 06, 2005 11:35 pm

Could one of the U.K. folks give a cut-to-the-chase description of your form of government. House of Lords, House of Commons, Parties, Prime Minister, how elected, terms of office, ect.

Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:32 am

Pete Dube wrote:Could one of the U.K. folks give a cut-to-the-chase description of your form of government. House of Lords, House of Commons, Parties, Prime Minister, how elected, terms of office, ect.


Well, it's all a bit beyond me !

We have three main political parties: Conservatives, Labour & The Liberal Democrats.

Plus many many smaller parties.

The country is divided into around 630 constituencies, with each one having a Member of Parliament.

These 630 MP's make up the House of Commons.

The party with the most MP's forms the government, with their leader becoming the Prime Minister, and there is a general election every 5 years [max] for the population aged over 18 to vote for the MP of their choice in their constituency.

There is no limit to how many terms the Prime Minister can serve, as long as he has the most MP's in the house.

The upper tier of parliament is The House of Lords which is made up of life peers [the hereditary ones have mostly been got rid of now].

Err...... that's it, really.

Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:32 am

Thanks for that explanation Colin. Our form of government is derived from yours, so I can get a handle on your system.
One last question: what is meant by 'life peers'?

Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:08 am

Pete:

A "life peer" is someone who, I believe, is given the title of Lord but is not entitled to pass the title on to their descendents. I think that is how it works. A complete waste of time if you ask me, unless you happen to be one, in which case you would probably think it was great.

We in the UK tolerate the monarchy because it's easier than starting a revolution. We tried it once before, in the 1640's, but it all went tits up when Oliver Cromwell's son proved to be a wet blanket. So they brought the king back from exile somewhere in Europe and they haven't looked back since.

Re: Dear British boardmembers

Mon Nov 07, 2005 5:51 am

Pete Dube wrote:Now I have a question for all of you U.K. folks. Why do you tolerate the monarchy? Judging from the comments on this thread there seems to be a disillusionment with the tradition.


There is growing disillusionment, but I think a fairly even split on those who would keep and those who would remove the monarchy. A poll in 2004 asked whether people preferred Charles to become King or there to be an elected head of state. This found that 55% were in favour of Charles becoming King and 31% preferred an elected head of state. However, as part of the same poll, only 47% said they thought the monarchy should continue after the current Queen, so I don't know what to make of that! I suspect that William would attract more support than Charles as a future King.

I'm fairly indifferent, but given the choice would keep the monarchy. It's not like we would really gain anything from removing this essentially symbolic tradition. Besides, there is a place for tradition in society isn't there? The monarchy wields no real power now - or at least exerts none -so it doesn't interrupt our system of democracy in any way. Some point to the economic argument, but in reality the civil list costs us pittance in the grand scheme of things. I'm also pretty confident that our tourist industry benefits from the monarchy remaining in place.

If there were any significant benefits associated with removing the monarchy, I'd likely support the idea, but I can't think of any.

Mon Nov 07, 2005 9:30 am

TJ -

You wrote:
I'm fairly indifferent, but given the choice would keep the monarchy. It's not like we would really gain anything from removing this essentially symbolic tradition. Besides, there is a place for tradition in society isn't there? The monarchy wields no real power now - or at least exerts none -so it doesn't interrupt our system of democracy in any way. Some point to the economic argument, but in reality the civil list costs us pittance in the grand scheme of things. I'm also pretty confident that our tourist industry benefits from the monarchy remaining in place.


How about letting them continue, but in a private capacity ?

In other words, at no cost to the public purse !

My bet is that they would accept that.

I resent even a fraction of my taxes going to support these privileged, pampered, wealthy parasites.

Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:16 pm

ColinB wrote:I resent even a fraction of my taxes going to support these privileged, pampered, wealthy parasites.


Go Colin! Those are my thoughts exactly. However, most people in Sweden seem to support these f*ckers so I don't think I'll ever see the day when the Monarchy is over with. A mere mention of this creates an outrage (which to me is evidence enough that most people are stupid). It's ridiculous, really. I mean it just doesn't belong in this day and age. Our King looks like the village idiot to boot. I'm ashamed of him and I can't see what good he does for my country. All they do is steal our money and then spend it on clothes, boats, nice trips to exotic countries, cars, houses and cocaine.

Keith Richards, Jr.

Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:27 pm

Keith -

Thanks for your support !

Did you know that our Prince Charles actually has a flunkey who has to put his toothpaste on his toothbrush for him before he enters the bathroom each morning ?

And there is hell to pay if it isn't done !