Thoughts on America...

Kronic · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 3:43 pm

Alex wrote:

None taken. The Queen > Flag, period.

Too be honest, I'd rather sing to a flag to show respect to those who fought for our country and the notion of freedom than to someone who in my opinion, is stealing from the Britsh people with such unnecessary luxuries.

Also I find it highly judgemental to base a country as a whole based on stories from Fox News or a certain toursit site that you happened to visit in America. America, as a whole, isn't modeled around tourist sites. It's wrong to scrutinize a country's traditions and lifestyle if you haven't visited but a small portion of that country. Hell, I won't deny, America isn't a perfect country, but then again, who is?

Adbot · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 3:43 pm

Brad · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 3:54 pm

Kronic wrote:

Alex wrote:

None taken. The Queen > Flag, period.

Too be honest, I'd rather sing to a flag to show respect to those who fought for our country and the notion of freedom than to someone who in my opinion, is stealing from the Britsh people with such unnecessary luxuries.

Also I find it highly judgemental to base a country as a whole based on stories from Fox News or a certain toursit site that you happened to visit in America. America, as a whole, isn't modeled around tourist sites. It's wrong to scrutinize a country's traditions and lifestyle if you haven't visited but a small portion of that country. Hell, I won't deny, America isn't a perfect country, but then again, who is?

'stealing'?

There was an article I read a few months ago that said the Queen costs the British public 62p (to anyone who doesn't understand British currency, virtually nothing, spare change) per person. Now I'm not pro royal, quite the opposite infact, but she isn't 'stealing' anything from us. The royal family has vast personal wealth, they are not funded by the tax payer. Please get your facts straight.

Kronic · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 4:09 pm

Brad wrote:

'stealing'?

There was an article I read a few months ago that said the Queen costs the British public 62p (to anyone who doesn't understand British currency, virtually nothing, spare change) per person. Now I'm not pro royal, quite the opposite infact, but she isn't 'stealing' anything from us. The royal family has vast personal wealth, they are not funded by the tax payer. Please get your facts straight.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1991/03/25/74805/index.htm

Before you rebuke and comment that the article is from '91, yes, I know it is. It was the only "hard" proof I could find and that you might have a possibility of believing other than me stating it.

Now, while the article is a bit outdated, I highly doubt that when in '91 the House of Commons deemed it necessary to raise funds from the British people to support one overly expensive lady and her luxuries has dropped to 62p now? Even if the British government, today, decided to lower the Queen's funds, there is no way it would be only 62p with today's inflation and her previous expenses. Now please get your facts straight. :roll:

I consider that stealing because it "steals" a large amount of taxes to support her and not improve your country. :wink:

Anubis · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 4:20 pm

CreepyPirate wrote:

Well when you refer to a queen who doesn't just rule over this country but several others as "an old lady", When shes kept us free, done a lot of good deeds you're going to upset a few people.

I think the point he was trying to make is, a flag doesn't make you free. In fact a flag does absolutely nothing and he didn't understand why you sung about it. If you want to ask opinions on America, you really should be prepare to get a few bad comments.

Lets try to move on from that, because it's a bit stupid arguing over it.

Yeah.. I wasn't 'dissing' the national anthem as such, I was just commenting on there are a lot better things about america than a flag, a flag isn't the country - it's what the country does and achieves. Let's face it, Americas done a lot more than most. (Not england though, we invented evolution <3)

Bogrollbloke · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 4:21 pm

Kronic wrote:

Brad wrote:

'stealing'?

There was an article I read a few months ago that said the Queen costs the British public 62p (to anyone who doesn't understand British currency, virtually nothing, spare change) per person. Now I'm not pro royal, quite the opposite infact, but she isn't 'stealing' anything from us. The royal family has vast personal wealth, they are not funded by the tax payer. Please get your facts straight.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1991/03/25/74805/index.htm

Before you rebuke and comment that the article is from '91, yes, I know it is. It was the only "hard" proof I could find and that you might have a possibility of believing other than me stating it.

Now, while the article is a bit outdated, I highly doubt that when in '91 the House of Commons deemed it necessary to raise funds from the British people to support one overly expensive lady and her luxuries has dropped to 62p now? Even if the British government, today, decided to lower the Queen's funds, there is no way it would be only 62p with today's inflation and her previous expenses. Now please get your facts straight. :roll:

I consider that stealing because it "steals" a large amount of taxes to support her and not improve your country. :wink:

£50 multiplied by the 60 million people in the UK would mean she gets £3,000 Million per year. Which is of course, rubbish. She gets paid very little, but doesn't need to spend money because she gets all of her items for free from companies instead of charging her.
And I find it hard to believe an American news website over common sense, especially since news reporters are prone to "bending the truth" and even making things up without any proof, which is evident here.

There's another bad thing about 'merica, the press, and how nigh-on everyone in the country is dependant on celebrities.

Anubis · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 4:31 pm

It's probably worth mentioning that we can't go to war unless our Queen gives her approval. I don't know about you, but I'm glad we have something a little extra to prevent whatever ******* is in charge of our country saying there's nuclear weapons all over the world which need to be removed. XD

Adbot · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 4:31 pm

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 4:32 pm

Also probably worth mentioning the royal family pull in so many tourists to this country they pretty much pay for themselves anyway. XD

To think all this came from a minor comment about a flag.

Brad · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 4:35 pm

CreepyPirate wrote:

Also probably worth mentioning the royal family pull in so many tourists to this country they pretty much pay for themselves anyway. XD

To think all this came from a minor comment about a flag.

Yes, some people really get worked up over this stuff, immature really.

Can't just let other people have opinions about things, they have to go run off their mouth about it.

And yes, I'd say the main advantage of the monarchy is that its a safeguard against tyranny.

Kronic · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 5:06 pm

Bogrollbloke wrote:

She gets paid very little, but doesn't need to spend money because she gets all of her items for free from companies instead of charging her.
And I find it hard to believe an American news website over common sense, especially since news reporters are prone to "bending the truth" and even making things up without any proof, which is evident here.

There's another bad thing about 'merica, the press, and how nigh-on everyone in the country is dependant on celebrities.

Why do British companies feel obligated to basically give enought money and resources to support basically a figurehead? I know she recieves much support from her Windsor Corporation, but I'm curious to know why she needs more help. I'm not intending to be anti-Queen, but as you can tell I'm not British and obviously don't have the "common sense" to fully understand what the Queen represents to the British other than a symbol of England. I'd like an answer to the question though, and not an attempt to make a joke because it honestly won't bother me.

And to clarify, since when is the Fortune 500 composed by celebrities... :lol:

It's not like they are Fox News, I would expect their calculations to be fairly accurate.

Brad wrote:

Yes, some people really get worked up over this stuff, immature really.

Weren't you just getting worked up defending the Queen? :-s

Brad wrote:

And yes, I'd say the main advantage of the monarchy is that its a safeguard against tyranny.

I'm sorry, but I'd much rather have as system that can de-throne a leader after his 4 year term, then taking your chances on heridity, who rules for life. All it takes is one bad apple, I'd take 4 years over a lifetime anyday.

If America was a monarchy and Bush was the son of our King. We'd be spending 50 years of his reforms instead of the 8 years we have suffered already. But of course, monarchy is a safegaurd against tyranny so no big deal.

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 6:10 pm

Quote:

I'm sorry, but I'd much rather have as system that can de-throne a leader after his 4 year term, then taking your chances on heridity, who rules for life. All it takes is one bad apple, I'd take 4 years over a lifetime anyday.

And yet having a royal family has done our country nothing but good. Having bush has done nothing but..well, we all know what it's done.

Kronic · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 6:54 pm

CreepyPirate wrote:

And yet having a royal family has done our country nothing but good. Having bush has done nothing but..well, we all know what it's done.

True, the most of the royal families ruling England have acted for the good of the country. However, just as we have had bad presidents (Bush, Clinton, LBJ, Harding, Johnson), Britian has had bad monarchs (such as in my opinion Mary I, Edward VII and VII, Cromwell, etc.) and while we only had to wait 4-8 years to attempt to fix the damage they caused, you had to wait till they died.

The aspect I don't like about monarchies is the unpredictablility of whether the heridiary ruler will in fact be a good ruler for the country at all. If every monarch was good, then there would be no need for democracy and monarchies wouldn't have died out like they did.

Evelyn · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 8:00 pm

1. The American National Anthem was originally a drunkard's bar song.
2. The flag in my school cafeteria has 45 stars
3. I have to say that USA kinda sucks after 9/11

EDIT:

Anubis wrote:

It's probably worth mentioning that we can't go to war unless our Queen gives her approval. I don't know about you, but I'm glad we have something a little extra to prevent whatever ******* is in charge of our country saying there's nuclear weapons all over the world which need to be removed. XD

Congress declares war. Not the president.

The only exception is this stupid Iraq conflict.

Mushroom Queen · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 8:51 pm

dragonkin892 wrote:

I'm a bit offended by people dissing our national anthem.( Im from America)

Your anthem was written to the tune of a drinking song and the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Socialist. It's nothing to be offended about, it's just something you should know.

America's fine. It's one of those places that you can't stay in for too long.

Brad · **Posted:** December 4th, 2007, 8:57 pm

Kronic wrote:

CreepyPirate wrote:

And yet having a royal family has done our country nothing but good. Having bush has done nothing but..well, we all know what it's done.

True, the most of the royal families ruling England have acted for the good of the country. However, just as we have had bad presidents (Bush, Clinton, LBJ, Harding, Johnson), Britian has had bad monarchs (such as in my opinion Mary I, Edward VII and VII, Cromwell, etc.) and while we only had to wait 4-8 years to attempt to fix the damage they caused, you had to wait till they died.

The aspect I don't like about monarchies is the unpredictablility of whether the heridiary ruler will in fact be a good ruler for the country at all. If every monarch was good, then there would be no need for democracy and monarchies wouldn't have died out like they did.

I'll put this pure and simple for you, because you're obviously having difficulty understanding;

I'd rather have Queen Elizabeth and the royal family for eternity than have George Bush leading my country for 4 years, and I'd rather not be in a country that's dumb enough to re-elect him. The Royal Family hasn't done as much damage in however many hundreds of years, to Britain, than George Bush has to America in 7 years of office. Dispute that with some tired, battered old rhetoric if you must, but try and read what you write. And ask yourself if you really believe it.

And worked up? Haha, good one. No, I just like pointing out to people when they are wrong. Especially to people who have a hard time seeing it.

dragonkin892 · **Posted:** December 5th, 2007, 7:16 am

I'll admit there are alot of things wrong with America and alot more has gone wrong since Bush gained power but theres actually alot of good things in America and America has done some pretty good things..But then again so has England so my guess is that England is a great place too..