PDA

View Full Version : Comment this nicely captioned pic of Queen Elisabeth II


tennislover
Jan 2nd, 2013, 07:54 PM
http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/s480x480/602764_563004600393519_370261664_n.jpg

translation: A woman wearing a £ 1,000,000, worth hat delivers a speech about austerity

Sammo
Jan 2nd, 2013, 08:08 PM
:spit:

By the way is it only 1,000,000 pounds? Victoria's Secret's Diamond Bra is usually about $6,000,000

http://blu.stb.s-msn.com/i/58/3943A3D5A35E598C73FAAA62A76B_h400_w300_m2_bblack_q 100_p100_cXOLWjSHB.jpg

Gagsquet
Jan 2nd, 2013, 08:14 PM
British need a 1789.

Talula
Jan 2nd, 2013, 08:57 PM
British need a 1789.

No thank you.

And what has a Republic given France? A worse economy than Britain's!

duhcity
Jan 2nd, 2013, 09:06 PM
A million? That crown is priceless.

kwilliams
Jan 2nd, 2013, 09:20 PM
^ That's a bit simplistic, Talula. The quality of life is still higher in France.

As for the queen and the royal family - they do more for the public now than they have ever done in the past (and I believe Charles and many of those younger than him are actually in touch with reality) but how often do you see the queen visiting lower income families and thanking them for their contributions!? :lol: I'd have almost no problem with her if the royals didn't receive money from British taxpayers.

Gagsquet
Jan 2nd, 2013, 09:36 PM
I don't even know where their legitimacy comes from. God ? please... Bunch of impostors.

Soliloque
Jan 2nd, 2013, 09:42 PM
No thank you.

And what has a Republic given France? A worse economy than Britain's!

Hum. French economy is doing better than Britain's one. Thank you.

Nicolas
Jan 2nd, 2013, 10:27 PM
No thank you.

And what has a Republic given France? A worse economy than Britain's!

Good one.... :lol:

Olórin
Jan 2nd, 2013, 10:52 PM
The quality of life is still higher in France.



Don't you think that's a bit simplistic also KWilliams? (Think that's the first comment of yours I've ever disagreed with).

By what measure is "quality of life" higher in France? And surely it's up to the individual to decide what gives their life "quality" not a statistician. At the end of the day a slum is still a slum whether it's in Paris on the French Riviera or in Birmingham or Glasgow.

Good one.... :lol:

Hum. French economy is doing better than Britain's one. Thank you.

Maybe you need some economic knowledge first? France's overall economic growth is slower than Britain's. The UK economy has overtaken France's within the past year. Britain also has a much bigger Financial Sector which is more involved in the Asian economies, which in turn are leading the growth in the worldwide economy. In fact France's long term economic situation is such that embittered and petty French politicians have resorted to nonsense statements about "Britain's economic situation being worse [debatable - but still inappropriate rhetoric coming from politicians who should be working together]", "Britain can't measure its own growth accurately", snarky comments about the UK's credit rating. It's a ridiculous situation where so many are uninformed and it shows in this thread with comments like these, Taula's on the British side and every other French person's in the thread.

Gagsquet
Jan 2nd, 2013, 11:26 PM
Maybe you need some economic knowledge first? France's overall economic growth is slower than Britain's. The UK economy has overtaken France's within the past year. Britain also has a much bigger Financial Sector which is more involved in the Asian economies, which in turn are leading the growth in the worldwide economy. In fact France's long term economic situation is such that embittered and petty French politicians have resorted to nonsense statements about "Britain's economic situation being worse [debatable - but still inappropriate rhetoric coming from politicians who should be working together]", "Britain can't measure its own growth accurately", snarky comments about the UK's credit rating. It's a ridiculous situation where so many are uninformed and it shows in this thread with comments like these, Taula's on the British side and every other French person's in the thread.

France and UK 2012 growth are pretty much equal.
And the GDP of France is still bigger than UK by a comfortable margin.
You like spreading bullshits, son.

Soliloque
Jan 2nd, 2013, 11:30 PM
Don't you think that's a bit simplistic also KWilliams? (Think that's the first comment of yours I've ever disagreed with).

By what measure is "quality of life" higher in France? And surely it's up to the individual to decide what gives their life "quality" not a statistician. At the end of the day a slum is still a slum whether it's in Paris on the French Riviera or in Birmingham or Glasgow.





Maybe you need some economic knowledge first? France's overall economic growth is slower than Britain's. The UK economy has overtaken France's within the past year. Britain also has a much bigger Financial Sector which is more involved in the Asian economies, which in turn are leading the growth in the worldwide economy. In fact France's long term economic situation is such that embittered and petty French politicians have resorted to nonsense statements about "Britain's economic situation being worse [debatable - but still inappropriate rhetoric coming from politicians who should be working together]", "Britain can't measure its own growth accurately", snarky comments about the UK's credit rating. It's a ridiculous situation where so many are uninformed and it shows in this thread with comments like these, Taula's on the British side and every other French person's in the thread.

http://www.craigwilly.info/?p=944


GDP, productivity, debts, deficits, poverty rate... All the numbers are in France's favor. The Economist is trying hard to give France a bad reputation but maybe people should not believe all the bullshit a magazine says. And most numbers showing that Britain's growth is doing better are actually 2013 and 2014 projections. Let's wait for those years to actually happen before calling UK the new economic miracle.

kwilliams
Jan 3rd, 2013, 12:39 AM
Don't you think that's a bit simplistic also KWilliams? (Think that's the first comment of yours I've ever disagreed with).

By what measure is "quality of life" higher in France? And surely it's up to the individual to decide what gives their life "quality" not a statistician. At the end of the day a slum is still a slum whether it's in Paris on the French Riviera or in Birmingham or Glasgow.


Perhaps. It depends on your outlook, I suppose. I agree that quality of life rankings can be somewhat subjective but different bodies measure different things so by comparing different rankings, I think you can get a picture that is clear enough. The UK's economy might be doing better and may have a more promising economic outlook but the figures vary a little when you look at Nominal GDP versus PPP GDP per capita. France ranks higher for HDI, education and healthcare (and life expectancy 79.6yrs v. 78.4yrs) France also ranks highly on these "happiness" indexes which are becoming more and more common. They carry less weight with me (I think they are really quite subjective) but are not completely irrelevant. Also, if, as you say, you think it's up to the individual to assess the quality of their own life, then, collectively, the French would seem to have a better quality of life as they are happier.

So, Britain's economy may be better but is it benefiting the people as much as it should be? Is the royal family benefiting the British public or are they a burden in some ways? Some British people are happy to have them either way, which is fine but what if that tax money could be pumped into education or the NHS? Wouldn't that be better for everyone?
As you say a slum is a slum but you've got a better chance of working your way out of the slums if certain services are of a higher standard. Good education and healthcare promote social mobility.

esquímaux
Jan 3rd, 2013, 01:23 AM
The original caption is priceless :lol:

KournikovaFan91
Jan 3rd, 2013, 01:29 AM
British need a 1789.

Preach

I'm so anti-monarchy globally, I can't believe some countries still have such medieval forms of selecting a Head of State :tape:

Halardfan
Jan 3rd, 2013, 01:54 AM
Perhaps. It depends on your outlook, I suppose. I agree that quality of life rankings can be somewhat subjective but different bodies measure different things so by comparing different rankings, I think you can get a picture that is clear enough. The UK's economy might be doing better and may have a more promising economic outlook but the figures vary a little when you look at Nominal GDP versus PPP GDP per capita. France ranks higher for HDI, education and healthcare (and life expectancy 79.6yrs v. 78.4yrs) France also ranks highly on these "happiness" indexes which are becoming more and more common. They carry less weight with me (I think they are really quite subjective) but are not completely irrelevant. Also, if, as you say, you think it's up to the individual to assess the quality of their own life, then, collectively, the French would seem to have a better quality of life as they are happier.

So, Britain's economy may be better but is it benefiting the people as much as it should be? Is the royal family benefiting the British public or are they a burden in some ways? Some British people are happy to have them either way, which is fine but what if that tax money could be pumped into education or the NHS? Wouldn't that be better for everyone?
As you say a slum is a slum but you've got a better chance of working your way out of the slums if certain services are of a higher standard. Good education and healthcare promote social mobility.

I'm basically in favour of a republic for Britian. But not for financial reasons. I'd wager any money given to the Royals is more than made up for in the tourism cash they attract.

Much stronger is an arguement that anyone with ability should be able to aspire to the highest offices in the land and that isn't possible with the Royal family. It reinforces notion of class which are divisive to society.

Historically things are complicated, remember that England executed its king in a revolution long before the likes of France did.

The French Revolution deposed tyranny but it led to crazed paranoid mass executions so it wasn't the best advertisement for a republic. Likewise Russia, oppression and inequality under the Tsar, replaced with communists who were at least as bad.

KournikovaFan91
Jan 3rd, 2013, 02:10 AM
Much stronger is an arguement that anyone with ability should be able to aspire to the highest offices in the land and that isn't possible with the Royal family. It reinforces notion of class which are divisive to society.

Historically things are complicated, remember that England executed its king in a revolution long before the likes of France did.

The French Revolution deposed tyranny but it led to crazed paranoid mass executions so it wasn't the best advertisement for a republic. Likewise Russia, oppression and inequality under the Tsar, replaced with communists who were at least as bad.

Agree with the first point that monarchies reinforce class systems but using such historical examples sound like something the Daily Mail would do, like 1700s France and 1917 Russia is hardly comparable to 2013 UK.

A republic in the UK doesn't seem at all attainable imo, I mean look at the media when has there even been a debate about the monarchy on British TV??? Same in NZ and Australia, they're so brainwashed from birth with monarchist doctrine. Jamaica is one of the few that seems to be heading in the right direction (cue right wing outrage in Britain).

Like the fact Kate Middleton's uterus is going to selected a future British Head of States is totally ridiculous in 2013. :shrug:

Halardfan
Jan 3rd, 2013, 02:21 AM
Agree with the first point that monarchies reinforce class systems but using such historical examples sound like something the Daily Mail would do, like 1700s France and 1917 Russia is hardly comparable to 2013 UK.

A republic in the UK doesn't seem at all attainable imo, I mean look at the media when has there even been a debate about the monarchy on British TV??? Same in NZ and Australia, they're so brainwashed from birth with monarchist doctrine. Jamaica is one of the few that seems to be heading in the right direction (cue right wing outrage in Britain).

Like the fact Kate Middleton's uterus is going to selected a future British Head of States is totally ridiculous in 2013. :shrug:

1789 was raised as an example of what we should do by another poster. What I'm saying is I'm in favour of a republic now but historically it wasn't always the best idea.

I dont accept this notion of being brainwashed. Put simply if the likes of Austrailia wants to become a republic they have a clear democratic process ready to do so. Eventually I imagine they will. But it will be their choice and that is surely fair.

KournikovaFan91
Jan 3rd, 2013, 02:32 AM
So you don't believe that when from birth you are bombarded with the media glorifying the monarchy you aren't obviously going to be swayed in that direction.

The reason why there is such little major political change in the developed world is that we've been conditioned to believe any shit the media puts out there, the media is of course owned by big corporations who have no interest in changing the status quo hence they make sure the people don't want to either.

Even the Guardian is lukewarm about republicanism and it is the newspaper that should be promoting republicanism. Its the only British newspaper I can tolerate but even its strayed towards the populist line on occasion.

As I said when has there ever been a discussion on British republicanism on a British current affairs show? I mean that jubilee took out, it was one piece of propaganda after another and this royal baby is the same :rolleyes:

I'm sure its the same in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Spain, etc. (Spain always seemed odd to me, like it doesn't seem like a culture that would put up with a monarch but I guess they do).

tennislover
Jan 3rd, 2013, 02:35 AM
Hundred Years's war broke out again in this thread!
Peace. Peace. Peace.

:help: :D

tennislover
Jan 3rd, 2013, 02:38 AM
No thank you.

And what has a Republic given France? A worse economy than Britain's!

Good point.
On the other hand, the most powerful nation in the world (the USA) has not got a king/queen.

tennislover
Jan 3rd, 2013, 02:47 AM
British need a 1789.

Agreed.

On the other hand,they invented constitutional monarchy and that was as important as the French Revolution...

Halardfan
Jan 3rd, 2013, 03:17 AM
So you don't believe that when from birth you are bombarded with the media glorifying the monarchy you aren't obviously going to be swayed in that direction.

The reason why there is such little major political change in the developed world is that we've been conditioned to believe any shit the media puts out there, the media is of course owned by big corporations who have no interest in changing the status quo hence they make sure the people don't want to either.

Even the Guardian is lukewarm about republicanism and it is the newspaper that should be promoting republicanism. Its the only British newspaper I can tolerate but even its strayed towards the populist line on occasion.

As I said when has there ever been a discussion on British republicanism on a British current affairs show? I mean that jubilee took out, it was one piece of propaganda after another and this royal baby is the same :rolleyes:

I'm sure its the same in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Saudi Arabia, Spain, etc. (Spain always seemed odd to me, like it doesn't seem like a culture that would put up with a monarch but I guess they do).

Of course elements of the British media take a fawning line over the royal family but its nowhere near as clear cut as you suggest. Rupert Murdoch owns a large chunk of the media and he is no clear cut royalist. The press in the Charles/Diana years were often vicious about the royals. Becoming a republic is often debated in Britain but the fact is there is little appetite for it. Now you would suggest its because of some mass media brainwashing but I don't buy it.

Rather its more likely because most politicians are held in very low regard in Britain whereas the Queen is well liked.

Republicanism will have more of a voice if and when Charles becomes king...he is a much more divisive figure.

That said William is popular and will probably be a popular king too.

kwilliams
Jan 3rd, 2013, 11:39 AM
I don't understand the notion that the royals attract tourists. Are visitor figures for certain palaces in the UK higher than Versailles or Schonnbrunn? I paid a bomb to visit Schonnbrunn earlier this year. If the royals didn't live in the palaces they could be opened up much more to tourists and surely then more money would be generated, right?

You could still have the changing of the guard. I only have one friend who would be in any way interested in actually seeing the royals (and even then just the princes and she's Australian) Anyone else I have asked, whether Irish, British, American, Italian, Australian, Korean, Canadian, Chinese, French or German - they have no interest whatsoever in seeing them. Many would read a bit of news whilst browsing but it's just a passing interest and would not seem to be a motivating factor for visiting the UK. The palaces, churches, museums etc. would be a factor, but not the royals themselves.

I don't know why Charles is so unpopular. I don't really care for him or anything but he's much better than the queen or Philip or even his siblings (though I must admit I know next to nothing about them)

Also, even if they do draw tourists, they should still go around giving people personal thank yous sometimes. Lower income families shouldn't be paying anything to fund the lavish lifestyles of others, no matter how tiny a fraction of their wages goes to the royals.

Sam L
Jan 3rd, 2013, 11:57 AM
Agreed.

On the other hand,they invented constitutional monarchy and that was as important as the French Revolution...

I don't get constitutional monarchy. I believe in absolute monarchy or republic. What's the point of a monarch that has limited or especially no power? You might as well get rid of them. At least, absolute monarchs DID something. Some say that they (these constitutional monarchs) are above politics and that they unite the people. I think that's lying to ourselves there.

Take, for example, US politics. It's very divisive. But that's because society is divided. Generally speaking, rich vote for a party, poor vote for the other one, black for one, white for the other, religious for one, non-religious for the other one. But at least with that, you see the problems in society and we can work towards healing them.

In a system where the monarch seemingly unites the country without politics, I think it's a failed attempt to hide the divisions and problems within the country that are just going to come out sooner or later.

I don't have a problem with the current British royal family but they've been irrelevant since 1688.

Halardfan
Jan 3rd, 2013, 02:01 PM
I don't understand the notion that the royals attract tourists. Are visitor figures for certain palaces in the UK higher than Versailles or Schonnbrunn? I paid a bomb to visit Schonnbrunn earlier this year. If the royals didn't live in the palaces they could be opened up much more to tourists and surely then more money would be generated, right?

You could still have the changing of the guard. I only have one friend who would be in any way interested in actually seeing the royals (and even then just the princes and she's Australian) Anyone else I have asked, whether Irish, British, American, Italian, Australian, Korean, Canadian, Chinese, French or German - they have no interest whatsoever in seeing them. Many would read a bit of news whilst browsing but it's just a passing interest and would not seem to be a motivating factor for visiting the UK. The palaces, churches, museums etc. would be a factor, but not the royals themselves.

I don't know why Charles is so unpopular. I don't really care for him or anything but he's much better than the queen or Philip or even his siblings (though I must admit I know next to nothing about them)

Also, even if they do draw tourists, they should still go around giving people personal thank yous sometimes. Lower income families shouldn't be paying anything to fund the lavish lifestyles of others, no matter how tiny a fraction of their wages goes to the royals.

Well certainly here in Japan one of the things that most interests the people I've met about Britain is the Royal family...and I'm convinced that they are a contributory factor about many visits to Britain.

Regardless, let me be clear, I'm in no sense a royalist and would happily vote for a republic if given the chance. Just I recognise other countries systems have glaring faults too.

kwilliams
Jan 3rd, 2013, 03:20 PM
Wow, really? Maybe it's partially because they have their own imperial family. Actually, now that I think of it, I have two friends that are interested in the royals. My other friend's parents are Scottish though, so that's part of it.

Do you think there would be less visits to Britain, if they weren't there? There could possibly be more if all the palaces were more accessible.

tennislover
Jan 3rd, 2013, 06:35 PM
I don't get constitutional monarchy. I believe in absolute monarchy or republic. What's the point of a monarch that has limited or especially no power? You might as well get rid of them. At least, absolute monarchs DID something. Some say that they (these constitutional monarchs) are above politics and that they unite the people. I think that's lying to ourselves there.

Take, for example, US politics. It's very divisive. But that's because society is divided. Generally speaking, rich vote for a party, poor vote for the other one, black for one, white for the other, religious for one, non-religious for the other one. But at least with that, you see the problems in society and we can work towards healing them.

In a system where the monarch seemingly unites the country without politics, I think it's a failed attempt to hide the divisions and problems within the country that are just going to come out sooner or later.

I don't have a problem with the current British royal family but they've been irrelevant since 1688.

Having make the monarchy irrelevant is indeed the greatest achievement of the English.....:)