Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Stupid royal wedding

Page 5 of 6 [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

30 Apr 2011, 10:56 am

Meh, i don't understand all the hate. It's a wedding, just let them do their thing and leave them alone? =/ I didn't watch the thing myself, was rather indifferent to what was happening. Still, at least my thoughts about this didn't turn negative like some people around here. o.O



Subotai
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,036
Location: 日本

30 Apr 2011, 10:58 am

The way I see it everyone enjoyed the royal wedding. Whether you got all starry eyed over it or filled with righteous disdain it provided you some kind of entertainment.
Thanks British tax payers! :P



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

30 Apr 2011, 11:08 am

Subotai wrote:
The way I see it everyone enjoyed the royal wedding. Whether you got all starry eyed over it or filled with righteous disdain it provided you some kind of entertainment.
Thanks British tax payers! :P


I didn't watch it & as a British tax payer I should be intiled to a refund plus am pissed off that the royal family are getting two tax payer funded parties in two years (there having another party next year for the Diamond Jubilee). The country has financial problems the money can be put to better use.

The royal family have money of there own, why don't they spend it on there own parties?



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

30 Apr 2011, 11:08 am

phil777 wrote:
Meh, i don't understand all the hate. It's a wedding, just let them do their thing and leave them alone? =/ I didn't watch the thing myself, was rather indifferent to what was happening. Still, at least my thoughts about this didn't turn negative like some people around here. o.O
It is a wedding, and it is all right to report it. But Yesterday, CNN in Spanish gave it almost 99% coverage the whole day. More important things happened that day.


_________________
.


Subotai
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,036
Location: 日本

30 Apr 2011, 11:15 am

cdfox7 wrote:
Subotai wrote:
The way I see it everyone enjoyed the royal wedding. Whether you got all starry eyed over it or filled with righteous disdain it provided you some kind of entertainment.
Thanks British tax payers! :P


I didn't watch it & as a British tax payer I should be intiled to a refund plus am pissed off that the royal family are getting two tax payer funded parties in two years (there having another party next year for the Diamond Jubilee). The country has financial problems the money can be put to better use.

The royal family have money of there own, why don't they spend it on there own parties?


Personally I think they should receive no more tax payer money, letting them make due with their current assets would be generous enough. If it were up to me though I'd abolish it and have the state seize their assets, turn Buckingham Palace into a museum lol.



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

30 Apr 2011, 11:23 am

Subotai wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
Subotai wrote:
The way I see it everyone enjoyed the royal wedding. Whether you got all starry eyed over it or filled with righteous disdain it provided you some kind of entertainment.
Thanks British tax payers! :P


I didn't watch it & as a British tax payer I should be intiled to a refund plus am pissed off that the royal family are getting two tax payer funded parties in two years (there having another party next year for the Diamond Jubilee). The country has financial problems the money can be put to better use.

The royal family have money of there own, why don't they spend it on there own parties?


Personally I think they should receive no more tax payer money, letting them make due with their current assets would be generous enough. If it were up to me though I'd abolish it and have the state seize their assets, turn Buckingham Palace into a museum lol.


I agree take the spongers off the Civil list. lol this is back in 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jun/2 ... ephenbates

There recon back then it costs the tax payer about the same cost of two pints of milk to keep the royal family going for a year.
Personal I want to two extra pints of milk.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

30 Apr 2011, 11:23 am

Err, wait, the royal family receive tax money? In the UK? That place that just recently had to endure terrible budget cuts? Hmmn.


_________________
.


puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

30 Apr 2011, 11:29 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
Err, wait, the royal family receive tax money? In the UK? That place that just recently had to endure terrible budget cuts? Hmmn.


You didn't know that?

The Royal Family are major benefit scroungers :lol: :lol:


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

30 Apr 2011, 11:30 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
Err, wait, the royal family receive tax money? In the UK? That place that just recently had to endure terrible budget cuts? Hmmn.


Yes they get tax payers money plus they started paying tax on some of there assets a few years back.
Plus there were asked in the last two budgets by the government to cut back on there spending of public money, double standards!! !



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

30 Apr 2011, 11:34 am

puddingmouse wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Err, wait, the royal family receive tax money? In the UK? That place that just recently had to endure terrible budget cuts? Hmmn.


You didn't know that?

The Royal Family are major benefit scroungers :lol: :lol:


and RBS, and Northern Rock, and the MPs and the lords in the Palace of Westminster!
There all on the fiddle too :wink:



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

30 Apr 2011, 11:37 am

cdfox7 wrote:
Your wrong there the royal family dones poke the nose into politics. The Queen meets with the Prime Minster on a weekly baseus.


Yes, but she's essentially powerless to do anything. The weekly meetings are more about tradition than anything else.



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

30 Apr 2011, 11:42 am

Tequila wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
Your wrong there the royal family dones poke the nose into politics. The Queen meets with the Prime Minster on a weekly baseus.


Yes, but she's essentially powerless to do anything. The weekly meetings are more about tradition than anything else.


Yes I know that tho that don't stop her son Charlie from poking his nose into politics now don't it. He should know better has he is 1st in line to the Royal Loo.



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

30 Apr 2011, 11:49 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
Err, wait, the royal family receive tax money? In the UK? That place that just recently had to endure terrible budget cuts? Hmmn.

The queen paid for the afternoon reception, and Prince Charles paid for the evening reception, so those were not taxpayer funded.

Security was taxpayer funded, but they were handling tens or hundreds of thousands of the public, presumably taxpaying, so that seems reasonable. There was a separate reception for foreign dignitaries that went to the wedding but were not invited to the Queen's or Charles' receptions, which is being paid for by the government - the wedding was almost 2000 people, the receptions covered about 600 - but the decision to hold that extra reception, for which no cognate existed in past royal weddings, appears to have been made by the foreign office, not the royal household.



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

30 Apr 2011, 11:53 am

Vigilans wrote:
Yeah, if only the President (politician) would just not get involved in any politics

Actually, the U.S. President should theoretically stay out of politics in discharging his executive functions, instead faithfully following the policies established by legislation. The President does also get a say in what legislation is passed through his veto power, of course.

Examples like refusing to grant drilling licenses in defiance of legislations and court orders are, in fact, political acts that go beyond what the President should be doing.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

30 Apr 2011, 1:08 pm

psychohist wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Yeah, if only the President (politician) would just not get involved in any politics

Actually, the U.S. President should theoretically stay out of politics in discharging his executive functions, instead faithfully following the policies established by legislation. The President does also get a say in what legislation is passed through his veto power, of course.

Examples like refusing to grant drilling licenses in defiance of legislations and court orders are, in fact, political acts that go beyond what the President should be doing.


It seems petty to me to suddenly start complaining about these things when I'm pretty certain LibertarianAS would be keeping his mouth shut if it was a Republican president doing similar acts in favor of what he supports. Obama isn't the first and won't be the last to take some matters into his own hands. But equating the office of President with the British Royalty is just foolish. The President is an elected official, the royals are not


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

30 Apr 2011, 1:13 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
LibertarianAS wrote:
ONE OF THE THINGS I ADMIRED ABOUT BRITISH KINGS AND QUEENS IS THAT THEY KEEP THEIR NOSE OUT OF POLITICS.....SOMETHING I WISH OUR KING, HRH OBAMA, WOULD DO


Yeah, if only the President (politician) would just not get involved in any politics
Also wish social Darwinist pseudo-libertarians wouldn't.


They should just stay in their parent's basements or under their troll bridges. Social Darwinists are scum


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do