Britain would be better as a Republic? Yay or Nay

Post by **Loredoctor** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:28 am

Yes, but there was second gunman! He is another member here.

Post by **Edinburghemma** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:30 am

dammit! tell me all!Or else.

Post by **Loredoctor** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:44 am

He is . . . . *thump* arghhhh!

Post by **Bucky OHare** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:36 pm

People! whats gone wrong here? the voting is currently tied! more people need to vote to get rid of the bourgeois oppression! do it or else

Post by **Jemmy Bloocher** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 6:42 pm

Clearly the monarchy are an archaic 'institution', which by their very nature and social rules will eventually breed themselves out of existence.

Post by **Bucky OHare** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 8:01 pm

well they've been ruling us for a thousand years, how much time do they need?

Post by **Myste** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:54 pm

Yeah, but it hardly goes in a straight line of descent, now, does it? William of Normandy's line lasted what, 3 or 4 generations; god only knows who came next (Hey, I have a hard enough time remembering the presidents of my own country!:P), but then you had the Tudors, and the Fourdoors, and then the Stuarts, and then you chopped poor Charlie's head off, and then you brought the Stuarts back, and then that didn't work, so you got William & Mary, who were Orange, and then you elected those damn Hanoverians and you were really in the suds.

In other words, the Windsors have only been around for a small part of those 1000 years; just give them some time!

Post by **Bucky OHare** » Wed Jul 14, 2004 10:10 pm

hmmm, I'm not so sure. i always thought that there was at least some familial connection between them all. eg when we chopped off charlie IIIs head, after a few years we invited his son back. I'm pretty sure QEII can trace her lineage back centuries.

(ps who are the Fourdoors? and we didn't elect the Hanovarians, thats the point, also, the Windsors are the Hanovarians. They changed their name during WWI cos people didn't really want a bunch of germans ruling them)

Just be happy you don't have to live under their bourgeois oppression!!!!

Post by **UrLord** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:39 am

Bah, clearly you just need the US to annex you; that's the direction you've been heading any way, right? Dump your royalty and just row your little island over here. You can just park it in the Gulf of Mexico, I think there's enough room there. As a bonus, as part of the south you can help keep the Republicans in charge! Isn't that grand?

Post by **Bucky OHare** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:57 pm

Gulf of Mexico does sound nice but QEII for Dubya doesnt really sound like a fair trade. QEII is much prettier and has better tiaras.

i know, we could sail to New Zealand! think of the scenery and the hobbits. and we'd be in the South Pacific. we could sing musicals all day long.

Post by **Myste** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 2:49 pm

GullibleJohnny wrote:(ps who are the Fourdoors?

The Fourdoors are slightly more expensive than the Tudors and have more legroom, as well as bigger trunk space.

GullibleJohnny wrote: and we didn't elect the Hanovarians, thats the point, also, the Windsors are the Hanovarians. They changed their name during WWI cos people didn't really want a bunch of germans ruling them)

But wasn't George I called the Elector of Hanover or sumfin? I better brush up on my Brithist. I think I knew that they were the Windsors, but maybe I didn't.

GullibleJohnny wrote: Just be happy you don't have to live under their bourgeois oppression!!!!

Believe me, I am. At least you're oppressed by genuine royalty, though. We get oppressed by a pack of jumped-up second-rate Yalies who have to pretend to be Texan in order to get any respect at all. It's appalling.

Post by **Bucky OHare** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:32 pm

Myste wrote:
GullibleJohnny wrote:(ps who are the Fourdoors?
The Fourdoors are slightly more expensive than the Tudors and have more legroom, as well as bigger trunk space.

Okay, now i get it

Myste wrote: But wasn't George I called the Elector of Hanover or sumfin? I better brush up on my Brithist. I think I knew that they were the Windsors, but maybe I didn't.

Actually, you probably know more about it than i do. i mainly make it up as i go along.

Myste wrote: GullibleJohnny wrote:
Just be happy you don't have to live under their bourgeois oppression!!!!

Believe me, I am. At least you're oppressed by genuine royalty, though. We get oppressed by a pack of jumped-up second-rate Yalies who have to pretend to be Texan in order to get any respect at all. It's appalling.

You have a cure!!! vote the dipstick out!

Post by **Myste** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:21 pm

GullibleJohnny wrote: You have a cure!!! vote the dipstick out!

There are those who might say we never voted him in, in the first place!

Post by **Tranquil Hegemony** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 9:53 pm

GullibleJohnny wrote:I vote for a republic with a directly elected and accountable President.

<sarcasm cheapshot="true">
Yeah, because that works SO well for us over here in the States...
</sarcasm>

Oops, you did say "directly elected". Never mind...

Post by **CovenantJr** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 10:01 pm

Hah! I was thinking that, but I decided to leave it for someone who lives there

Post by **Bucky OHare** » Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:52 pm

Tranquil Hegemony wrote:
GullibleJohnny wrote:I vote for a republic with a directly elected and accountable President.
<sarcasm cheapshot="true">
Yeah, because that works SO well for us over here in the States...
</sarcasm>

Oops, you did say "directly elected". Never mind...

For shame. Is there no hope for any of us?

Post by **UrLord** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:31 am

"There are those who might say we never voted him in, in the first place!"

And those people would have no problem with the electoral college system if it just happened to vote in their favorite candidate, so I have no reason to care about what THEY have to say. I personally like the electoral college system...the way it was originally meant to work. Vote for the intellectual elite who would get together and decide among themselves who would be president. It was designed to prevent the moron masses from screwing up democracy (the same moron masses who can barely figure out how to vote for someone in florida, or those who say that Bush somehow wasn't "really" elected simply because of how our electoral college system works, the system they didn't have a problem with before, likely because they never knew how it worked in the first place!) And then they changed the system, because promising stuff to people (like promising to vote for a particular candidate) is a popular thing to do. Thus, people who shouldn't even be trusted to operate a motor vehicle are allowed to help choose who will govern them, albeit through an awkward and unwieldy tool.

Bleh, the electoral college system is outdated an unnecessary any way these days...all they have to do is replace it with an IQ test and/or a test testing your knowledge of the important political issues. If you make your decisions about who to vote for based entirely on what you see on the TV, you shouldn't be making decisions at all. That's the system you crazy Brits need!

Post by **Myste** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:45 pm

UrLord wrote: "There are those who might say we never voted him in, in the first place!"
It was designed to prevent the moron masses from screwing up democracy (the same moron masses who can barely figure out how to vote for someone in florida, or those who say that Bush somehow wasn't "really" elected simply because of how our electoral college system works, the system they didn't have a problem with before, likely because they never knew how it worked in the first place!)

Is that meant for me? Am I a massive moron?:( I was merely stating a fact--that there are people who believe he wasn't really elected. I don't have a problem with the electoral college, whether or not my favored candidate makes it into office. It's worked pretty well for the last 225 years or so, even if the Florida Election Commission's voting machines don't work.

Post by **CovenantJr** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 9:14 pm

I don't know whether or not Bush was legitimately elected, but I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't. I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw his house.

As for Britain...the monarchy doesn't really serve any purpose these days, but it has to be better than a bland republic... Which we almost are anyway - we're an almost-republic with history.

Post by **UrLord** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 9:58 pm

No, no, no, I wasn't aiming that specifically at you! I'm sorry, just before writing that I got into an argument with someone who doesn't pay any attention to politics, but still firmly believes that Bush somehow cheated the system by getting in even without the popular vote, and by exploiting a loophole "stole" the election. The only thing the guy knows about Bush is pretty much what he learned from Michael Moore (and other similar disreputable sources), and he's exactly the kind of person who shouldn't be allowed to vote. Sorry, when I saw that comment I had an urge to rant and rave about people, but I didn't mean to insult you if that's how it appeared.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Britain would be better as a Republic? Yay or Nay

Do we get rid of the Queen?

Re: Britain would be better as a Republic? Yay or Nay

Re: Britain would be better as a Republic? Yay or Nay