28
   

The British Crown is a useless anachronism.

 
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Jul, 2012 08:42 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
The British Crown is a useless anachronism.

I know, right? It's what makes the Brits so endearing, and the Canooks, Aussies, and Kiwis too. And to think that 13 certain colonies could have just paid their bloody taxes and shut up! All of North America could be Canada by now. It's a pity that the Rebels won against the Loyalists in Unfortunate Incident of 1776.
Miss L Toad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 01:44 am
@Joe Nation,
One would never spit on both sides of her stamp collection.

http://www.therichest.org/celebnetworth/wp-content/themes/celebnetworth/thumb/timthumb.php?src=http://www.therichest.org/celebnetworth/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Queen_Elizabeth_II.jpg&h=273&w=220&zc=1

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 01:51 am
@Thomas,
You never know, you might have a decent health care system and unbiased news broadcasters.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 02:00 am
@Joe Nation,
Jesus Christ, i've already said what they are. Play this idiot game with someone else. I haven't said they represent useful benefits, only that they are useful to those who have and want monarchs. If you want to keep playing this stupid game, go back to page one and read my post again.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 02:02 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
Your t.v. stations wouldn't be showing all that royal programming if it didn't get good ratings. People like celebrity of all sorts. Turn off your t.v. and stop hanging with people who talk about the royals.


Amen to that. It sometimes seems to me that there's more royalists in the United States and Canada than there are in England.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 02:24 am
@Setanta,
I did ask you freak to provide an argument against my reasoning once you address me along the way, did you care to read it you would understand what stance I ask you to provide...you are nothing but a schizophrenic freak an apawling one and let me tell you dumb as hell !!! Now just shut the **** up you are boring !
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 02:33 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
You've got a gall to call anyone else boring. I answered your request for an argument against your "reasoning," such as it is. You also said i had never addressed the subject of monarchy, and my last response points out that you hadn't bothered to read the thread before jumping in and thrashing about like the witless fool that you are.

You know, your English isn't very good at the best of times, but it gets much worse when you lose your temper.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 02:38 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
what Joe doesn't seem to understand is the sheer indifference most people feel towards the Royal Family.


indifference may be the case in Britain (I'll trust you on that - unless I get a yen to look up the stats Very Happy ) but it is a big reason people go to Britain as tourists - people just love castles, esp. when they're still in use, however occasional




Well, consider the fact that of the two British posters to respond to this thread, Contrex wants to abolish the Royal Family, and I offer only very lukewarm support.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 02:52 am
@izzythepush,
...we would have to remove the Royal family first to make any valid statement regarding the British indifference to the royals, as it is is just familiar indifference...

...any argument against the royals must be a background general argument against what it means to be "royal" in all its forms, the need we have or don't have of it, and not a particular argument against monarchy, less alone a specific one...the way the debate is heading any short term solution targeting a specific manifestation will only replace one form of royalty for another, and we have all that around us already...republics come and go and monarchy's still prevail along the course of History...we are trying to do the same with religions, but end up only replacing myths...I rather listen a discussion on why we humans always pursue any symbolic manifestation of privilege as a goal a metaphor for well being without trade-offs, but it seams a bridge to far...any way you all have fun dwelling on the little stuff...
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 02:57 am
@izzythepush,
before you dump yer Queen, think of all the PR and market clout shes got. We are celebrity NUTZ over here, yet we wind up creating these airhead celebs who provide nothing to our culture.
We missed the opportunity when G Washington told Congress to shove the "You Majesty"monicker
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 03:18 am
@Setanta,
...no, you talked about big cars economic commercial viability, not about car aesthetic preferences less alone a psychoanalysis of it...you trashed my perhaps abusive metaphor on Americans mesmerizing with royalty in a less then dismissive way instead of heading to the heart of the matter, which of course is not a particular American trait, and finally you did confuse lack of polishness with lack of content in my remarks, you mostly are gratuitously unpolite not caring to even provide credible justification... and that's all what you did and I point it out...by the way your comment on Royals being useful when they are to the society's that have them is just the biggest piece of tautology reasoning I've seen from you...
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 03:28 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
First, you were the one who came up with that horseshit about an American penchant for exaggeration, with large automobiles being a symptom thereof--and i dismissed it by pointing out that circumstance favored big steel and big auto selling large cars to expand their markets. It had nothing to do with a penchant for exaggeration, nor a lack of royalty (one of the most hilarious bits of bullshit from you i've ever read).

Second, i listed the various uses to which monarchy is put, and that's no tautology. I see you failed to address those uses which i listed. You're a huge hypocrite to falut anyone else on being polite.

I believe i've answered your silly objections, but with your often nearly incoherent English, it's hard to be sure.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 03:32 am
@farmerman,
I have offered support for the Queen, albeit very lukewarm support. At the end of the day it's just too much hassle to get rid of them.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 03:44 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
First, you were the one who came up with that horseshit about an American penchant for exaggeration, with large automobiles being a symptom thereof--and i dismissed it by pointing out that circumstance favored big steel and big auto selling large cars to expand their markets. It had nothing to do with a penchant for exaggeration, nor a lack of royalty (one of the most hilarious bits of bullshit from you i've ever read).


Quote:
no, you talked about big cars economic commercial viability, not about cars aesthetic preferences less alone a psychoanalysis of it...

...and big cars are just one of the billion examples one can think off, I actually care to provide a few more from the huge pathetic limousines to general interior decoration to the Hollywood idols the list goes on ...bullshit is bluntly denying it !

...you can sing away all you want it, that wont change the nature of your comment...

Quote:
Second, i listed the various uses to which monarchy is put, and that's no tautology.


oh yeah...you did a good job in enumerating the obvious as usual...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 03:50 am
You didn't establish your pathetic and hilarious claim for a psychological basis for a preference for large automobiles. Whether or not you had, i was under no obligation to address notional claims such as that. I pointed out that the rise of large automobiles derived from a marketing campaign--i didn't need to do any more than that.

I have already pointed out that there is a penchant for exaggeration and cults of celebrity in other nations. Your only response is to say that you've not denied it--in effect, you beggar your own argument. Why should i bother to analyze an argument you are unwilling to support if it's challenged? As for what's obvious, it appears the author of this thread needed to have the obvious pointed out to him, given that he asks the question at all.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 04:25 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

You didn't establish your pathetic and hilarious claim for a psychological basis for a preference for large automobiles. Whether or not you had, i was under no obligation to address notional claims such as that. I pointed out that the rise of large automobiles derived from a marketing campaign--i didn't need to do any more than that.

I have already pointed out that there is a penchant for exaggeration and cults of celebrity in other nations. Your only response is to say that you've not denied it--in effect, you beggar your own argument. Why should i bother to analyze an argument you are unwilling to support if it's challenged? As for what's obvious, it appears the author of this thread needed to have the obvious pointed out to him, given that he asks the question at all.


1- I can't think of a damn successful product selling around the world, as I pointed earlier to Joe, from cheese, to champagne, to automobiles, who one way or another does not cast the "noble" stamp on its advertising...and yes if you did criticize such view you must provide in the least your line of reasoning which you didn't, again you rather go on explaining the economical viability of big cars but never addressed the preference itself which is of course the basic rule for selling anything, so its not at all hard to see my point...

2 - The penchant for exaggeration I did point out with America as a chronicle example was not presented as an exclusive one or as an exception to the rule but on the contrary as a perfect example of what is the rule which again should carried the thread direction to analyse the reasons we humans as a species have to indulge in such behaviour, the continued appetite for the exaggerated symbolic display of wealth power and genetic superiority to whatever chimp gang crosses our path...the bottom point is that "Royals", "Socialites", "Idols" "Pop Stars" and the likes are marketing variations between competing groups and cultures ADVERTISING NEEDS, the visible face of success, they all refer to the same winning formula...a quite natural expression of Darwinian ethnic engagement which again obviously would be the perfect non trivial development the thread was asking for...your comments as most around was mediocre, short sighted, and unfocused...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 04:26 am
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:

Discuss.

I can't, for the life of me, think of a single reason for the Royal Family to have any presence in the British government. I think they could continue to exist as a sort of curiosity, an attraction for the tourists, the same as any other pop idols, (Lord knows, there's plenty of Americans who can't get enough of gazing at that bunch of stiffs on a balcony.) but, they shouldn't receive a pound's worth of taxpayer money for any purpose. They can pay for their own security and mow their own lawns.

Anyway, let's talk.
Convince me that the Royals have some beneficial utility.

Joe(I'll pour some tea.)Nation
I 'm under the impression that thay OWN the place; inherited the real estate.
However, their predecessors in title lost 2 wars (that can bring bad luck):
the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution in the 16OOs,
in consequence whereof, the WINNER, the Parliament, is still running the show.

I am not aware that: "the Royals have some beneficial utility"
but, in theory, thay own the place, so far as I understand.

Admittedly: I have not been keeping abreast of events
qua the real property rights of that family.





David
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 04:33 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
That's bullshit, i did provide my line of reasoning. It's not my fault that you're too dense to have gotten it. All you offer is ipse dixit contentions, there was no line of reasoning. Your latest example is this silly claim about casting a "noble stamp" on advertising. So what? Since you say it happens all around the world (without providing a shred of evidence), it beggars your argument about the situation in the United States being unique. You've already beggared that argument, so i guess now you want to beat it to death.

So, apparently, given your original rationale, you now claim that this "chronicle example" (god, you crack me up) is not unique. So are you saying that everyone around the world suffers from a lack of monarchy and are therefore lead to seek out the "noble stamp?" How then do you account for exaggerated cultural artefacts in countries which do have monarchies? You are your own worst enemy when it comes to these silly arguments you are advancing. There is no such thing as "Darwinian ethnic engagement" other than in your fevered imagination.

Throughout all of this, you have offered nothing but unsubstantiated contentions, and florid, largely incoherent exaggerations. You're the one here with an exaggeration problem.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 04:46 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
At the end of the day it's just too much hassle to get rid of them


Too much paperwork?
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jul, 2012 04:47 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
So, apparently, given your original rationale, you now claim that this "chronicle example" (god, you crack me up) is not unique. So are you saying that everyone around the world suffers from a lack of monarchy and are therefore lead to seek out the "noble stamp?" How then do you account for exaggerated cultural artefacts in countries which do have monarchies? You are your own worst enemy when it comes to these silly arguments you are advancing. There is no such thing as "Darwinian ethnic engagement" other than in your fevered imagination.


While I didn't claim its uniqueness, I exaggeratedly claim the need of symbolic cultural identity a country has fulfilled or not by having a monarchy in place as relationally diverting to other areas of the social reservoir for "example" and "identity" from which the United States is perhaps the biggest leading example, as marketing is your winning bet...again you can call it silly all you want, I wont peddle the argument further with you as I am sure any intelligent reader by now as seen the point being made...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Anyone heard of this person? - Question by sophocles
Should America become a monarchy? - Question by matttheroman
MONARCHY - Discussion by Setanta
Monarchical USA? - Discussion by ScarfaceZel
Bonny Birthday Prince Charles - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/26/2021 at 11:38:55