[122025278]

(Original post by monk_keys)
I have no problem with political campaigns of any sort, my problem was with your implication that if we were ever to become a republic then we would look back on this era as akin to Nazism in Germany or Apartheid in SA.

Surely you could have found better parallels for your example?

I explicitly gave explained the implication for you previously, LOOK

"You basically said, if you don't like it, get out.

Not liking a political policy in your country and wanting to reform it implies => You should "get out""

I'm saying that a policy of don't like it, then get out, could be used to justify anything. It had nothing to do with the monarchy lol. What don't you get about that? And please please explain how I implied that if we ever become a republic we will look back on this era as akin to Nazism, I'm genuinely interested. Q the excuses of why you won't!

[Ferrus]

(Original post by RabbitCFH)
You realise that it's not absolute monarchy and the Queen has practically no powers...

No, actually, I didn't. Indeed, most republicans I know have almost complete ignorance of politics and constitutional law; tending to blindly read the prole-feed in the tabloid before forming a half-baked hand-me-down opinion on constitution structured.

[zKlown]

(Original post by Miza)
Do people really believe and accept the Monarchy? Do they really agree that some of us are just born to be Kings/Queens/Princes?

The sheer ignorance of people is killing me inside, in 21st century should we really be having Royal Family and all this Imperialism?

This video pretty much sums it up for me - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH8_y...ture=g-all-lik

Now tell me how you love the Queen, keep worshiping the Queen, how you would die for the Queen because at the end of the day you are her subject, just a peasant and a consumer unit.

On the other hand if this world didn't have soo many stupid/ignorant/easy to manupulate sort of people then the elite would not be able to control us, so keep being stupid,close minded and ignorant because this planet needs more people like you.

Nah, it's easier to be a sheep than be an outcast tbh.

But I do agree with you

[DeadBullyMafiosi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dMVaoDepVA
This is celebrating the Jubilee with an Indian touch, its an excellent video! Its a really good song!

[L i b]

(Original post by Retro.spex)
Why is it that people need the monarchy to unite people?

That something serves to unite people is a positive argument in favour of it - it does not mean that somehow the world would fall apart if it wasn't there, as you seem to be suggesting.

There are plenty of other things to be proud to be a part of in this country. For me, the monarchy is simply a reminder of Britain's imperialistic past. Although I don't blame the current royal family for the actions of those in the past, I do think that people's opinions on the matter should at least be acknowledged. (E.g. the kohinoor diamond)

You'll presumably want to demolish the British Museum for similar reasons then? No? Good.

Tax payers money which could be much better spent on health services, education and all round efforts to improve the lives of many people in this country.

Rubbish. A President would very likely cost more. The debate is between a monarch and president, not between a monarch and something which costs nothing.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

(Original post by L i b)
That something serves to unite people is a positive argument in favour of it - it does not mean that somehow the world would fall apart if it wasn't there, as you seem to be suggesting.



You'll presumably want to demolish the British Museum for similar reasons then? No? Good.



Rubbish. A President would very likely cost more. The debate is between a monarch and president, not between a monarch and something which costs nothing.

What makes you think a president would cost more? Irelands president costs **** all, and they have a similar system of governance as we do, except their representative head of state doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Who says we would have to have a president, there is absolutely no reason our country couldn't run without a head of state and merely a PM and parliament. All laws could fall under that of the council/parliament instead of the singularity of the crown.

[cl_steele]

(Original post by Miza)
Do people really believe and accept the Monarchy? Do they really agree that some of us are just born to be Kings/Queens/Princes?

The sheer ignorance of people is killing me inside, in 21st century should we really be having Royal Family and all this Imperialism?

This video pretty much sums it up for me - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH8_y...ture=g-all-lik

Now tell me how you love the Queen, keep worshiping the Queen, how you would die for the Queen because at the end of the day you are her subject, just a peasant and a consumer unit.

On the other hand if this world didn't have soo many stupid/ignorant/easy to manupulate sort of people then the elite would not be able to control us, so keep being stupid,close minded and ignorant because this planet needs more people like you.

i really cannot be more polite than call you a blithering idiot...

who cares if theyre born to be a king or queen? their role comprises nothing more than being an ambassador for the UK they have no real power, it makes absolutely no difference who does the job be it some bone headed politcion or Her/His Majesty
and as for imperialism, do you even no what that word means?

i think your little rant about worshipping the queen and being a 'consumer unit' and a 'peasant'goes two ways friend ... welcome to capitalism. again do you actually know what a peasant is...?

and as for your last paragraph, just wow.. how in any way does the queen 'control us' again she has zero power. i bet youre one of those bone headed conspiracy theorists who think 'the iluminati', the mormons, freemasons and little men from mars control the world ... grow up and stop ripping in to someone who has done nothing to you or anyone else. personally i feel sorry for the lady shes born into the family with no choice of her destiny then has to put up with jumped up pricks like you who rip into her saying shes the devil for doing her bloody job? she has to tour around the world opening buildings greeting moronic leaders of nations and saying hello to every flower bearing nutjob on this planet, she deserves a medal for having to put up with that hogwash, you on the other hand should be sent to the gallows for your closed mindedness and for being so horricly judgemental about a family who you know nothing about.

[monk_keys]

(Original post by 122025278)
I explicitly gave explained the implication for you previously, LOOK

"You basically said, if you don't like it, get out.

Not liking a political policy in your country and wanting to reform it implies => You should "get out""

I'm saying that a policy of don't like it, then get out, could be used to justify anything. It had nothing to do with the monarchy lol. What don't you get about that? And please please explain how I implied that if we ever become a republic we will look back on this era as akin to Nazism, I'm genuinely interested. Q the excuses of why you won't!

Well as I've already said we don't agree on how that comment is taken.

You don't see that when you use examples in relation to an argument you imply a relationship between the argument and the examples?

It's like me saying, people who want a republic want to change the country, like the far right or the IRA.

I put a negative connotation on change in the same way you did with the monarchy.

[FrigidSymphony]

(Original post by firebolt)
I think your incredible judgemental and horrible saying that about people you dont know just because thay have a different opinion to you, sorry your opinion is not law.

I personally love the royal family, They're our heritage and we should embrace that

Is your heritage German?

[Ali_Ludley]

Another point to throw in is that the monarchy provides a great tourist attraction to Britain that brings in a great source of money for our country! I don't see any other reason why our country would have appeal!
And one very important point is that England's current government is Conservative (Not that coalition rubbish...) and the monarchy means that if one person doesn't support the views of one's government, they can still support their country as the Queen does not have a stated view in politics. The monarchy gives people freedom of choice, for example in America, if the president decides to abide by one rule and others do not agree with it, they are disagreeing with their country and government whereas in England, the person can still support their country while possibly not supporting their government.

[122025278]

(Original post by L i b)
That something serves to unite people is a positive argument in favour of it - it does not mean that somehow the world would fall apart if it wasn't there, as you seem to be suggesting.



You'll presumably want to demolish the British Museum for similar reasons then? No? Good.



Rubbish. A President would very likely cost more. The debate is between a monarch and president, not between a monarch and something which costs nothing.

I'm interested Lib, genuinely how a President would cost more. For example, Princesses Eugenie and Beatrix recieve 24 hour armed protection from the DPG/RPG in the UK and all over the world. President Obama's brothers and sisters recieve none. Former Presidents parents recieved none (except GWB for obvious reasons...) and President Obama is a head of government!

If we had a head of state akin to the Irish model, the threat would be even lower. This just looks at security costs, I don't see how they could be anywhere near as much.

[Retro.spex]

(Original post by L i b)
That something serves to unite people is a positive argument in favour of it - it does not mean that somehow the world would fall apart if it wasn't there, as you seem to be suggesting.


You'll presumably want to demolish the British Museum for similar reasons then? No? Good.


Rubbish. A President would very likely cost more. The debate is between a monarch and president, not between a monarch and something which costs nothing.

Firstly, I said exactly the opposite.

Secondly, the purpose of a museum is completely different to what I am referring to, and I think you know that. I'm referring to the monarchy having ownership over property which does not rightfully belong to them, not a museum educating the public.

Thirdly, I didn't suggest this was a debate between a monarch and a president, you did, so please don't put words into my mouth.

[122025278]

(Original post by monk_keys)
Well as I've already said we don't agree on how that comment is taken.

You don't see that when you use examples in relation to an argument you imply a relationship between the argument and the examples?

It's like me saying, people who want a republic want to change the country, like the far right or the IRA.

I put a negative connotation on change in the same way you did with the monarchy.

But wasn't my argument pertaining to the policy of "Don't like it, just get out"? I don't see how "your implication that if we were ever to become a republic then we would look back on this era as akin to Nazism in Germany or Apartheid in SA." lol

And I didn't even mention the monarchy! Show me where I did, it was the POLICY. Infact, looking back, I haven't even mentioned anything in dialogue with you that would suggest a negative attitude towards the monarchy, just that policy.

[Democracy]

(Original post by firebolt)
I just think that theyre a good example and they unite people, its not really a pathetic excuse,

A good example of what exactly? The Queen seems like a nice enough lady, and she and her parents played an important part in maintaining morale in WWII Britain (you know, when the public really cared about what the monarchy said and did), but setting her aside, her descendants are only an example of one thing: utter mediocrity. If the Queen died tomorrow and WWIII was declared next week, how many people in this country do you think would actually look to King Charles III for morale and national confidence?

and how are you planning to get rid of them exactly?

They're just human beings. They are not some sort of superbeings. It doesn't have to be done via a bloody revolution (there's simply no need for that in a developed country with a tradition of parliamentary democracy), so they could be "got rid of" very easily indeed if the public wished it.

they still have all the powers, the queen could take all the powers from parliment if she wanted, although i do think that they take too much of tax payers money, who needs that much money to live off?

Haha, so what, you want a Royal family but you expect them to live in a semi in Sudbury?

[Foghorn Leghorn]

(Original post by Ali_Ludley)
Another point to throw in is that the monarchy provides a great tourist attraction to Britain that brings in a great source of money for our country! I don't see any other reason why our country would have appeal!
And one very important point is that England's current government is Conservative (Not that coalition rubbish...) and the monarchy means that if one person doesn't support the views of one's government, they can still support their country as the Queen does not have a stated view in politics. The monarchy gives people freedom of choice, for example in America, if the president decides to abide by one rule and others do not agree with it, they are disagreeing with their country and government whereas in England, the person can still support their country while possibly not supporting their government.

Eh but no they don't bring in that much toursim. Frances palaces which are open to the public bring in up to, and this is not a lie, more than 20 times the amount of the british palaces i.e (buckinham palace 400,000 a year, the louvre palace 8.6 million).

Your second point makes no sense, in america the president doesn't make rules he merely suggests them in the house and in congress and hopes he can convince enough representatives to write the bill and pass it through.

[monk_keys]

(Original post by 122025278)
But wasn't my argument pertaining to the policy of "Don't like it, just get out"? I don't see how "your implication that if we were ever to become a republic then we would look back on this era as akin to Nazism in Germany or Apartheid in SA." lol

Because that's what you imply with your sloppy examples.

[ЯOЯЯIM]

(Original post by Miza)
Do people really believe and accept the Monarchy? Do they really agree that some of us are just born to be Kings/Queens/Princes?

The sheer ignorance of people is killing me inside, in 21st century should we really be having Royal Family and all this Imperialism?

This video pretty much sums it up for me - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH8_y...ture=g-all-lik

Now tell me how you love the Queen, keep worshiping the Queen, how you would die for the Queen because at the end of the day you are her subject, just a peasant and a consumer unit.

On the other hand if this world didn't have soo many stupid/ignorant/easy to manupulate sort of people then the elite would not be able to control us, so keep being stupid,close minded and ignorant because this planet needs more people like you.

I don't think anyone here would actually sacrifice themselves for the queen, they're just glad of an excuse to party. They might soak up all of the propaganda about the Royal Family but remember that if no one believed in some form of BS, nothing would get done.

I do agree with what you are trying to say, but you are acting improperly. If you truly believe that the monarchy needs to be deposed, take your vacuous ranting to twitter or something. You will achieve very little here.

#Occupy did not start on TheStudentRoom. No, math problems are explained on TheStudentRoom; ways to deal with a cheating partner are explored on TheStudentRoom; frustration with the university application process is expressed on TheStudentRoom.

So spare us this empty bickering.

[Beebumble]

This forum sucks the fun out everything.

[122025278]

(Original post by monk_keys)
Because that's what you imply with your sloppy examples.

HOW! My examples had nothing to do with the monarchy though, all to do with the policy of shut up or get out lol, if I had, you would easily have shown me where I did. But of course I did you're just too busy/got other things to do/can't be bothered to show me, but I did say it. Yes.

P.S. You need to learn the meaning of the word imply, I suggest First Order Logic by Cauman.

[Ali_Ludley]

(Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
Eh but no the don't bring in that much toursim. Frances palaces which are open to the public bring in up to, and this is not a lie, more than 20 times the amount of the british palaces i.e (buckinham palace 400,000 a year, the louvre palace 8.6 million).

Your second point makes no sense, in america the president doesn't make rules he merely suggests them in the house and in congress and hopes he can convinces enough representatives to write the bill and pass it through.

Ok i can't dispute your first point but all i'm saying is that the monarchy brings in SOME tourism to our country and the second point, you missed my point entirely. The fact is that if a law is passed by the American government, the people of america have to accept it and if anyone doesn't accept it, the don't accept their country's government (In a way) but in England, if a law is made and a person doesn't accept it, they can still support their country through their monarchy as their monarch doesn't have a political standing. My point is more to do with freedom of choice for a person, simplified i am saying a person can support their country but not necessarily their government through the monarchy.
By the way, I am not an American politics master so if I have got anything wrong about that I am sorry.

Just a side note, America is an example, no hard feeling etc.!