Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is also a lot of confusion regarding European monarchies, by people who know nothing about them - European monarchies have virtually no power. They do not make laws, they do not pass legislation, they do not set taxes and they do not decide who is in power, they cannot even cast a vote. When our leader goes to a foreign country to represent the UK, our Prime Minster goes, not our Queen. European monarchies exist merely as a cultural asset, they are figureheads, they are here because we want them, there is no desire or initiative to remove them. If there was the desire or the initiative to remove them, if the public become increasingly hostile towards the monarchy (which may happen when Charles is king), then the government will have no choice but to hold a vote. It's likely that a vote will be held in countries like Canada and Australia after Elizabeth dies.
It will also interest you to know that the most expensive head of state in Europe is the French president, likewise France is ranked as a flawed democracy by the Democracy Index. Italy doesn't fare too well, either, nor Greece. No surprise to see that the country ranked highest is one with a monarchy, so your entire posts are based on misconceptions. Please try harder next time.
There is also a lot of confusion regarding European monarchies, by people who know nothing about them - European monarchies have virtually no power. They do not make laws, they do not pass legislation, they do not set taxes and they do not decide who is in power, they cannot even cast a vote. When our leader goes to a foreign country to represent the UK, our Prime Minster goes, not our Queen. European monarchies exist merely as a cultural asset, they are figureheads, they are here because we want them, there is no desire or initiative to remove them. If there was the desire or the initiative to remove them, if the public become increasingly hostile towards the monarchy (which may happen when Charles is king), then the government will have no choice but to hold a vote.
That's all good and fine. But why are these monarchs so extremely wealthy if they are just figureheads? I don't understand why the vast majority of the citizens of a country would want an tiny, elite class of people to have so much money just because of hereditary privilege. Wouldn't you want to spread that wealth around some more?
The monarchy is largely self-funding, so they are not a burden to the taxpayer, likewise the monarchy contributes a lot to charity. They're not sitting there with heaps of money doing absolutely nothing while everyone else suffers. They are even taking massive pay cuts in this time of austerity, the pay cut to the British monarchy means they are no longer the wealthiest in Europe.
America criticizes itself so much, at times it gets irritating, but I would rather that then lie to ourselves and not address our real problems.
And, to avoid hypocrisy Europeans should be very, very cautious on how they criticize the US. This a group that has caused the most wars, invaded and conquered the most lands, devastated and killed the most people in the history of the world. In comparison, the US is like 100 times more peaceful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunno what to put here
Oh FFS. First, you saved us from German occupation, now you are saying we should not criticise the US because of what our ancestors did.
You cannot be seriously referring to events hundreds of years ago that have no bearing whatsoever on the population today. What exactly are you trying to prove here?
If you read my post, I never said Europeans shouldn't criticize America, I said they should be careful how they do so in order to avoid hypocrisy.
So now the conquering and devastation of Africa which ended around the 1960's is hundreds of years ago and has no effect on our population today? Was WW1 & WW2 hundred's of years ago also. What about the invasion and occupation of India, China, middle east,etc does that have not bearing on our situation today. You can go all over the world and find the devastating effects of European imperialism. Why not just acknowledge history and not try this ridiculousness.
The 'devastation' of Africa ended well before that point. A few European countries retained a few colonies until the 1990s, but no European country was raping the land of Africa in the 1960s. You should pick up a history book. Nobody alive today has anything to do with what happened. It's actually embarrassing to watch you try and argue the opposite. You are so blinkered to reality.
There is also a lot of confusion regarding European monarchies, by people who know nothing about them - European monarchies have virtually no power. They do not make laws, they do not pass legislation, they do not set taxes and they do not decide who is in power, they cannot even cast a vote. When our leader goes to a foreign country to represent the UK, our Prime Minster goes, not our Queen. European monarchies exist merely as a cultural asset, they are figureheads, they are here because we want them, there is no desire or initiative to remove them. If there was the desire or the initiative to remove them, if the public become increasingly hostile towards the monarchy (which may happen when Charles is king), then the government will have no choice but to hold a vote. It's likely that a vote will be held in countries like Canada and Australia after Elizabeth dies.
It will also interest you to know that the most expensive head of state in Europe is the French president, likewise France is ranked as a flawed democracy by the Democracy Index. Italy doesn't fare too well, either, nor Greece. No surprise to see that the country ranked highest is one with a monarchy, so your entire posts are based on misconceptions. Please try harder next time.
Dormant or nice tyranny, doesn't change the fact that it's tyranny.
A monarchy in any form is the opposite of a democracy.
And, monarchies do have power, which is why they receive free tax money and there is not a specifically stated mechanism as to how they can be removed.
You never had a choice, point to the vote in history your countrymen gave to grant the Monarchy power for an endless term
Because the monarchy's term of power never ends, by what stated mechanism can the monarchy (specifically) be removed? If it's not stated in law, then it doesn't exist.
There are monarchies in Europa that have been approved by its citizens via referendums.
Maybe it's hard to believe for you, but not everybody in the world wants to have the American model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drknoble
Unlike the American model, the constitutional monarchy model has an undemocratic contradiction. You can not be a true democracy when your government is described as a "monarchy."
I don't think that American two-party system is a really democratic model.
Dormant or nice tyranny, doesn't change the fact that it's tyranny.
A monarchy in any form is the opposite of a democracy.
And, monarchies do have power, which is why they receive free tax money and there is not a specifically stated mechanism as to how they can be removed.
Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. Monarchies have very restricted power (they could, for example, remove the Prime Minster if said Prime Minster caused mass genocide) and what (comparatively) little money they receive in taxes is more than made up for in the revenue they create. They generate a surplus for the Commons. They benefit the nation. People here are not oppressed, they do not feel oppressed, we freely elect people every 5 years and they do all the decision making. You need to ask yourself, why constitutional monarchies are considered more free, open and democratic than their Republic counterparts.
The 'devastation' of Africa ended well before that point. A few European countries retained a few colonies until the 1990s, but no European country was raping the land of Africa in the 1960s. You should pick up a history book. Nobody alive today has anything to do with what happened. It's actually embarrassing to watch you try and argue the opposite. You are so blinkered to reality.
saying it over and over again doesn't make it true.
If something is true and you say it again, does it not remain true?
Tell me what I've said that is untrue?
Is there a specifically stated mechanism as to how these monarchies can be removed?
Do monarchies not receive free tax money?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
