Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:08 pm
Anowreck, Vlado....If you're trying to make a point, forget it.
How many threads on this forum don't "morph" into something that has nothing to do with the original post? Answer...VERY FEW.
If you're unhappy with the direction of this thread, turn the page and go to another and leave the "policing" to the moderators.
Mudge the succinct
ps That wasn't too subtle was it?
How many threads on this forum don't "morph" into something that has nothing to do with the original post? Answer...VERY FEW.
If you're unhappy with the direction of this thread, turn the page and go to another and leave the "policing" to the moderators.
Mudge the succinct
ps That wasn't too subtle was it?
Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:18 pm
Mudge wrote:Anowreck, Vlado....If you're trying to make a point, forget it.
How many threads on this forum don't "morph" into something that has nothing to do with the original post? Answer...VERY FEW.
If you're unhappy with the direction of this thread, turn the page and go to another and leave the "policing" to the moderators.
Mudge the succinct
ps That wasn't too subtle was it?
Woot Mudge!!!
Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:24 am
Brits love to rail on the Royals...standard fare, really. Since they are barely involved in the political process, their importance outside of pop culture has been marginalized in the last 50 years.
Britons, if you really dislike them that much...there is a way that you can unseat your monarchs. Oh, wait...no you can't. They all ready saw to it that you were all disarmed so that you are unable to even have an armed revolt. Sorry about that. But, on the upside, there is no more gun crime in the UK.
Personally, I wish there were a way that we in the US could get all of our leadership -- future military CINCs -- to also have had some sort of military service. That would certainly give them a different point of view when considering how to lead military forces.
Outside of compulsory military service, I just don't see how that's ever going to be possible (although I'm a fan of compulsory service for all Americans, even if it is not military, but that is another matter.).
Britons, if you really dislike them that much...there is a way that you can unseat your monarchs. Oh, wait...no you can't. They all ready saw to it that you were all disarmed so that you are unable to even have an armed revolt. Sorry about that. But, on the upside, there is no more gun crime in the UK.
Personally, I wish there were a way that we in the US could get all of our leadership -- future military CINCs -- to also have had some sort of military service. That would certainly give them a different point of view when considering how to lead military forces.
Outside of compulsory military service, I just don't see how that's ever going to be possible (although I'm a fan of compulsory service for all Americans, even if it is not military, but that is another matter.).
Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:42 am
Nice to see a pointless political argument without mention of Bush, Clinton or some other 'merican names. Oops.
They've been there and done that, rather before the colonies made a harbour full of tea. That one was warts and all, and caused the loss of some rather nice church art, oh, and rather more lives.
As to UK guns, the British aristocracy remains well armed, with all the equipment you need to shoot remarkably stupid birds. The poor (people) remain as armed as they ever were.
More on topic, I fail to see any meaningful benefits of the military service undertaken by most royals, beyond PR and some spare hands. Betty II did a bit of work and made front page news changing a tyre in W.W.II. That's not to detract from the personal effort of, for instance, qualifying as a military pilot etc. Nice, but like the royals, window dressing irrelevance, IMHO.
Regards,
Randy Haskin wrote:Britons, if you really dislike them that much...there is a way that you can unseat your monarchs. Oh, wait...no you can't. They all ready saw to it that you were all disarmed so that you are unable to even have an armed revolt. Sorry about that. But, on the upside, there is no more gun crime in the UK.
They've been there and done that, rather before the colonies made a harbour full of tea. That one was warts and all, and caused the loss of some rather nice church art, oh, and rather more lives.
As to UK guns, the British aristocracy remains well armed, with all the equipment you need to shoot remarkably stupid birds. The poor (people) remain as armed as they ever were.
More on topic, I fail to see any meaningful benefits of the military service undertaken by most royals, beyond PR and some spare hands. Betty II did a bit of work and made front page news changing a tyre in W.W.II. That's not to detract from the personal effort of, for instance, qualifying as a military pilot etc. Nice, but like the royals, window dressing irrelevance, IMHO.
Regards,
Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:19 am
JDK wrote: .... Betty II did a bit of work and made front page news changing a tyre in W.W.II.
That would be the Betty and her Ma and Pa who hung around London during the Blitz? Unlike Jittery Joe Kennedy then, who was so windy he had to be brought home and replaced?
And for Andy and Mudge the Reformer's benefit, the House of Windsor is NOT the richest family in the World - that honour probably belongs to the Gateses and the Buffets. The Times has estimated the Net Worth of the whole Royal Family to be about £4.5bn (that’s $9bn since you ruined your dollar!), or about half of what each individual member of the Walton family are worth according to Forbes. It would place the whole House of Windsor at about 75th....equal with Ruper Murdoch, the well-known Australian-American journalist.
Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:35 am
AndyG wrote:And they are all Elitist unelected parasites funded by the taxpayer and for what?
Well they probably do a hell of a lot more for the UK than the spin laden, lying, cheating, stupid, arrogant, ELECTED PARASITES that the poor taxpayer has to put up with, that for sure.........