Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years?
Good posting. Horse racing is the shit so I'm all for the Royal Family if it's true that they own all the horses in England. Euro-Horses are shit though, while some American thoroughbreds have been described as 'negative.'
Breeders cup 2009. Fourteen "championship" races.
Europe 6 wins from 30+ horses. USA 8 wins from 150+ horses. Plus you yeehaws all run on drugs banned everywhere else in the world. USA = owned! Fact.
Kirk, my point was about the ridiculous notion that the Queen has an unenviable lifestyle. ;)
The Queen is an independently wealthy woman. She could have buggered off years ago and lived off the interest off her interest and had an unbelievably lavish lifestyle, even compared to the one she has now. Instead she spent every year up till she was 80 doing 200+ domestic engagements a year, foreign tours etc. If that was me I would have done one charity event meeting worthies and saying nice things to unfortunate people then said sod it and been a playboy for the rest of my life. You couldn't make me do one of those things at gunpoint if I knew I could bugger off and enjoy myself instead. So what if the bits in between the endless engagements, endless travelling are nice? They'd be much nicer and more of them for an elected prez.
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.
It's alright saying no system should allow corruption but every system does. A constitutional monarchy is the least worst system available, QED.
And again, there's no excess of money going to anyody, there's a massive net saving with a monarchy. Arguing against the monarchy on cost grounds compared to other systems guarantees you lose the argument.
Eventually in a decade or three our system of government will be superseded by a Euro government in which the head of state takes
Euro-size bribes and costs us even more so there'll be no saving at all by having a monarch, but the British people will still cling to the monarchy, even more when we're governed by Europe and are looking to preserve national identity as much as possible. London may be very liberal and republican but if you go to the provinces you'll find incredibly strong support for the crown and that's before we end up run by Europe. A sure way to end up in Accident and Emergency is to go into a pub in Sunderland and start badmouthing the Queen.
I will not discuss the monarchy in Sunderland pubs then! ;D:p
My perspective is that the Queen is head of state in a symbolic form only. She passes through whatever the government demands no matter what her own views might be. Gordon Brown in this instance is the de facto President, it's just that we call him the Prime Minister. I don't see how taking away the Queen results in increased corruption in terms of the system we already have in the UK. When it comes to further integration into the European model, I can see your case but as it stands and looking at things as they are in the UK, I struggle to see it.
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
Good posting. Horse racing is the shit so I'm all for the Royal Family if it's true that they own all the horses in England. Euro-Horses are shit though, while some American thoroughbreds have been described as 'negative.'
Breeders cup 2009. Fourteen "championship" races.
Europe 6 wins from 30+ horses. USA 8 wins from 150+ horses. Plus you yeehaws all run on drugs banned everywhere else in the world. USA = owned! Fact.
Kirk, my point was about the ridiculous notion that the Queen has an unenviable lifestyle. ;)
The Queen is an independently wealthy woman. She could have buggered off years ago and lived off the interest off her interest and had an unbelievably lavish lifestyle, even compared to the one she has now. Instead she spent every year up till she was 80 doing 200+ domestic engagements a year, foreign tours etc. If that was me I would have done one charity event meeting worthies and saying nice things to unfortunate people then said sod it and been a playboy for the rest of my life. You couldn't make me do one of those things at gunpoint if I knew I could bugger off and enjoy myself instead. So what if the bits in between the endless engagements, endless travelling are nice? They'd be much nicer and more of them for an elected prez.
...created with our money.
200 engagements - Because she has a sense of duty, which is great but that is not the issue.
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hattonthehammer
exactly
I was a naive voter like many who heard a lot of people finally bringing this subject to our attention and chose to vote them on the basis of the issue that troubled me the most.
I admit i ballsed that up, having actually looked into their policys they are indeed a vile hate mob who want a racially pure nation. But the point i keep trying to explain to merkin is that while they may be neo-nazi thugs the large majority of people that vote for them arent. He wont have that, 8% of the british public are vile racist scum!
Yes i probably am a bit of a homophobe i`ll hold my hands up there, but merkin clearly has issues with "the man" and chooses to voice those on here
I've never assumed everyone who voted for them was a racist, but when I tried to address this to you at the time, you accused me of having an agenda because I didn't vote how you thought I should :rolleyes:
You talk about me throwing mud, but you dived into that mud & rolled around in it. You'll find I've very rarely called you out in a thread in the way you've been doing recently & then you're surprised that I respond.
Saying Floyd Mayweather is 'a typical African-American cocky cunt who needs a slap' is racist, regardless of you using the most politically correct language to say it. I tried to discuss this with you seriously on the other thread & either your reading skills or general ambivalence towards any serious discussion led you to ignore it. You've got the freedom to say what you like about people, I have no problem with that, but you can't then complain about me calling you out on it if I disagree with it.
You say I have problems with 'the man', well I've almost certainly worked far more closely with 'the man' than you have so that's a bit of a non-starter. I know it's easy for you to assume I have a chip on my shoulder, but I have no problem with a single other poster's comments on this site & have attacked the dickheads who accuse Missy & Miles of it, just because they hate Khan. It is just yours. Just think about some of the stuff you say & ask yourself if you would really say the same things (most rapes being committed by blacks) in a room full of black people. If you can honestly say you would, then I take it back you're not a racist.
Also if you're going to go on a windup, you might want to do it on a thread where I'm disagreeing with you ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing
It's alright saying no system should allow corruption but every system does. A constitutional monarchy is the least worst system available, QED.
And again, there's no excess of money going to anyody, there's a massive net saving with a monarchy. Arguing against the monarchy on cost grounds compared to other systems guarantees you lose the argument.
Eventually in a decade or three our system of government will be superseded by a Euro government in which the head of state takes Euro-size bribes and costs us even more so there'll be no saving at all by having a monarch, but the British people will still cling to the monarchy, even more when we're governed by Europe and are looking to preserve national identity as much as possible. London may be very liberal and republican but if you go to the provinces you'll find incredibly strong support for the crown and that's before we end up run by Europe. A sure way to end up in Accident and Emergency is to go into a pub in Sunderland and start badmouthing the Queen.
I've just picked this one out, but I agree with most of Kirkland's points on here. Even if I don't love the monarchy, they do much more good for our country than bad. In addition, the Prince's Trust is one of the single best charitable organisations in this country, particularly for helping young people from disadvantaged backgrounds make something of themselves. Whilst some say they perpetuate the class system, they do more than they need to in trying to help some of the most unfortunate break down the barriers of that system.
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Howlin Mad Missy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Breeders cup 2009. Fourteen "championship" races.
Europe 6 wins from 30+ horses. USA 8 wins from 150+ horses. Plus you yeehaws all run on drugs banned everywhere else in the world. USA = owned! Fact.
Kirk, my point was about the ridiculous notion that the Queen has an unenviable lifestyle. ;)
The Queen is an independently wealthy woman. She could have buggered off years ago and lived off the interest off her interest and had an unbelievably lavish lifestyle, even compared to the one she has now. Instead she spent every year up till she was 80 doing 200+ domestic engagements a year, foreign tours etc. If that was me I would have done one charity event meeting worthies and saying nice things to unfortunate people then said sod it and been a playboy for the rest of my life. You couldn't make me do one of those things at gunpoint if I knew I could bugger off and enjoy myself instead. So what if the bits in between the endless engagements, endless travelling are nice? They'd be much nicer and more of them for an elected prez.
...created with our money.
200 engagements - Because she has a sense of duty, which is great but that is not the issue.
What's the issue then?
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Quote:
Originally Posted by
miles
I think you make some interesting points as usual. In comparison to the costs of what the alternatives have been in other corrupt countries the cost might seem quite reasonable, but corruption is corruption. No system should be allowing those kinds of things to be happening in the first place. Political systems need to be more vigorous and the dirt should not be enabled to rise to the top. Like I say, I have nothing against the Queen on a personal level. Out of the entire family, she is the only one to have carried herself with any sense of decorum. And I respect her for that, but I still cannot justify the excess of money that goes towards her and her entire family. Putting a cap on her income would be a good thing to do, and it wouldn't be an act of spite. It would be an act of fairness. Nobody is forcing her to be Queen, she likely does it because it provides her and her family with a quality standard of living, no questions asked.
It's alright saying no system should allow corruption but every system does. A constitutional monarchy is the least worst system available, QED.
And again, there's no excess of money going to anyody, there's a massive net saving with a monarchy. Arguing against the monarchy on cost grounds compared to other systems guarantees you lose the argument.
Eventually in a decade or three our system of government will be superseded by a Euro government in which the head of state takes
Euro-size bribes and costs us even more so there'll be no saving at all by having a monarch, but the British people will still cling to the monarchy, even more when we're governed by Europe and are looking to preserve national identity as much as possible. London may be very liberal and republican but if you go to the provinces you'll find incredibly strong support for the crown and that's before we end up run by Europe. A sure way to end up in Accident and Emergency is to go into a pub in Sunderland and start badmouthing the Queen.
I will not discuss the monarchy in Sunderland pubs then! ;D:p
My perspective is that the Queen is head of state in a symbolic form only. She passes through whatever the government demands no matter what her own views might be. Gordon Brown in this instance is the de facto President, it's just that we call him the Prime Minister. I don't see how taking away the Queen results in increased corruption in terms of the system we already have in the UK. When it comes to further integration into the European model, I can see your case but as it stands and looking at things as they are in the UK, I struggle to see it.
Let's say the government is deciding which firms to hand mobile phone contracts to. Right now a parliamentary committeee made up of members from all parties is where the action starts. They have a working knowledge of the runners and riders and how much they're bidding before the decision gets made at ministerial level. If the minister makes a bs decision or the resulting deal looks nothing like it did in committee he's going to get crucified by the people on the committee not in his party, and probably his own party as well. If a company has to go through all that but need presidential assent, like France or Germany, the process seems to work in reverse, with assent sought before it goes to a low level. The prez's office basically shepherds the new deal through the whole process and puts it together at the end, resulting in zero oversight by anybody remotely fair or impartial and maximum possibility to fiddle the figures.
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kirkland Laing
Where would the horse-racing industry be without royal patronage over the years?
Good posting. Horse racing is the shit so I'm all for the Royal Family if it's true that they own all the horses in England. Euro-Horses are shit though, while some American thoroughbreds have been described as 'negative.'
Breeders cup 2009. Fourteen "championship" races.
Europe 6 wins from 30+ horses. USA 8 wins from 150+ horses. Plus you yeehaws all run on drugs banned everywhere else in the world. USA = owned! Fact.
OK I didn't see this shit. First of all, 8>6. I'm not sure what they teach you in Ireland, but that's simple math. And OF course there are going to be 5 times as many horses from the US. To get a horse overseas and acclimated is a complete bitch, it's the reason you never see American thoroughbreds go over to England.
You guys did good this was your best showing ever I believe, but you didn't have Zenyatta and how can you be owned when you have Zenyatta? No way.
Also, your statement about the horses being doped is shit. I'm sure stuff goes on in the states but no doubt it goes on EVERYWHERE. We do have testing.
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amat
Good posting. Horse racing is the shit so I'm all for the Royal Family if it's true that they own all the horses in England. Euro-Horses are shit though, while some American thoroughbreds have been described as 'negative.'
Breeders cup 2009. Fourteen "championship" races.
Europe 6 wins from 30+ horses. USA 8 wins from 150+ horses. Plus you yeehaws all run on drugs banned everywhere else in the world. USA = owned! Fact.
OK I didn't see this shit. First of all, 8>6. I'm not sure what they teach you in Ireland, but that's simple math. And OF course there are going to be 5 times as many horses from the US. To get a horse overseas and acclimated is a complete bitch, it's the reason you never see American thoroughbreds go over to England.
You guys did good this was your best showing ever I believe, but you didn't have Zenyatta and how can you be owned when you have Zenyatta? No way.
Also, your statement about the horses being doped is shit. I'm sure stuff goes on in the states but no doubt it goes on EVERYWHERE. We do have testing.
It's not shit. All American horses run on Lasix, a drug banned everywhere in the world apart from America.
It's also common knowledge there's an embarrassing drug image with American racing. Of the current top 10 American trainers this year only ONE has never been done for doping horses. That is a REAL fact. Serious.
6 race wins from 20 travelling horses is clearly far more impressive than 8 wins from 150 drugged up cheating ones. America got owned. Believe it. Fact.
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
It's not shit. All American horses run on Lasix, a drug banned everywhere in the world apart from America.
It's also common knowledge there's an embarrassing drug image with American racing. Of the current top 10 American trainers this year only ONE has never been done for doping horses. That is a REAL fact. Serious.
6 race wins from 20 travelling horses is clearly far more impressive than 8 wins from 150 drugged up cheating ones. America got owned. Believe it. Fact.
......such an interesting opinion about the ROYAL FAMILY especially coming from one of the posters that says I go off topic.
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lyle
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fenster
It's not shit. All American horses run on Lasix, a drug banned everywhere in the world apart from America.
It's also common knowledge there's an embarrassing drug image with American racing. Of the current top 10 American trainers this year only ONE has never been done for doping horses. That is a REAL fact. Serious.
6 race wins from 20 travelling horses is clearly far more impressive than 8 wins from 150 drugged up cheating ones. America got owned. Believe it. Fact.
......such an interesting opinion about the ROYAL FAMILY especially coming from one of the posters that says I go off topic.
Hold up
1. When have i ever accused you of doing anything? That's clearly rubbish. I don't give a fuck what you do.
2. I don't give a flying fuck about the ROYAL FAMILY. I don't give a fuck whether they exist or not. They are nothing but silver-spoon born rich cunts that mean nothing to me.
3. All good threads go off topic. Fact.
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Horse Racing? :peeker: Fucking hell
I guess its better than Nascar in the sense that the misery ends quickly.
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Nag racing is great.
I'm proud to be a 17 year degenerate gambler... homeless and on the run but still proud.
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OumaFan
Horse Racing? :peeker: Fucking hell
I guess its better than Nascar in the sense that the misery ends quickly.
great use of the smilie.
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
The only reason steroids are banned in Europe is because you guys eat horses therefore the horse racing industry there operates like the food industry in terms of what you can put on animals. Savages.
Re: Should we abolish the Royal family?
:lol:
Yanky drug cheat. Fact.
