Guest guest Posted April 11, 2002 Report Share Posted April 11, 2002 " What would you suggest instead? Have you thought of the costs implication of no longer having a Royal Family? " Dear Janey, You became a vegan, I hear. And yet the prevailing social norms are that we live off animals! Somehow you managed to work out an alternative to the slaughterhouse! SO WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO CONCEIVE OF SOCIETY EXCEPT IN TERMS OF THE MEAT-MURDER INDUSTRY REPRESENTED BY MONARCHY????????? *** " Consider the costs " ???? What, like some romantic knight suddenly changed sides in some forgotten battle 1,000 years ago so now his stupid inbred heirs got all this land and its theirs when it comes to stopping us getting on it but its ours when it comes to paying the bill to clean up their fucking mess? Think BSE and FMD! What are landowners for, Janey? Yeah I HAVE considered the cost of keeping these parasites -- and they just ain't worth it, you know? Or do you mean the *cost* to the poor landowner???? Sob sob! Edith I'm with Voltaire -- let the last priest be strangled with the intestine of the last landlord! And John Ball 1381: " Good People! Things will never go well in England while goods be held not in common! " And Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: " From each according to their means to each according to their needs! " _______________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 slg edith wrote: > > SO WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO CONCEIVE OF SOCIETY EXCEPT IN TERMS OF > THE MEAT-MURDER INDUSTRY REPRESENTED BY MONARCHY????????? > So, who would you like to have elected President? More to the point, who do you think would get the job? Yes, SLG, it is Tony Bliar for President or Lizzie Windsor for impotent monarch. Choose your evil carefully . -- Ian McDonald http://www.mcdonald.me.uk/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 Welcome back Doctor! No wiser I see >Dr Ian McDonald <ian > > >Re: Just Listen to Janey! >Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:41:10 +0100 > > > >slg edith wrote: > > > > SO WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO CONCEIVE OF SOCIETY EXCEPT IN TERMS >OF > > THE MEAT-MURDER INDUSTRY REPRESENTED BY MONARCHY????????? > > > >So, who would you like to have elected President? More to the point, who >do you think would get the job? > >Yes, SLG, it is Tony Bliar for President or Lizzie Windsor for impotent >monarch. Choose your evil carefully . > >-- >Ian McDonald > >http://www.mcdonald.me.uk/ _______________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 >So, who would you like to have elected President? More to the point, who >do you think would get the job? Wow, when I said I don't understand why people automatically assume that in dropping a monarchy we would have to have a president I never thought that Ian would be one of them. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 are you looking for a more socialist representation of the people M as an answer? ... you know it's a dream... since we know that a presidency has its faults and the monarchy has its faults... why would we want either? but there isn't the creative spirit to break out of those traditions (not at the moment anyway...) ... so either one is what we'll get... > > Mavreela [nec.lists] > Friday, April 12, 2002 11:13 AM > > Re: Just Listen to Janey! > > > > >So, who would you like to have elected President? More to > the point, who > >do you think would get the job? > > Wow, when I said I don't understand why people automatically > assume that in > dropping a monarchy we would have to have a president I never > thought that > Ian would be one of them. > > Michael > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 >are you looking for a more socialist representation of the people M as an >answer? ... It may just sound crazy, but you know what, I don't have the answer. I'm still waiting to discover that perfect system but both the current one and all the touted alternatives are flawed. >since we know that a presidency has its faults and the monarchy has its >faults... why would we want either? My point is simply that the monarchy serves not constitutional function and so if we remove them the government would carry on the same without anyone in its place. But whenever the matter is discussed all everyone says is " but if we get rid of the monarchy then we'd have a president which would be worse " . No we wouldn't. It's just an excuse to make the monarchy seem the lesser of two evils. Getting rid of the monarchy would not change a thing, but it would save money. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 > It may just sound crazy, but you know what, I don't have the > answer. I'm > still waiting to discover that perfect system but both the > current one and > all the touted alternatives are flawed. you're waiting to discover the perfect system? you waiting to do something ... you're going to discover it ... and it's perfect ... amazing.... we should make you king! > in its place. But whenever the matter is discussed all > everyone says is > " but if we get rid of the monarchy then we'd have a president > which would > be worse " . No we wouldn't. It's just an excuse to make the > monarchy seem > the lesser of two evils. but if we get rid of the monarchy and we don't have a president then we'd be a Communist Republic which would be worse :-) > Getting rid of the monarchy would not change a thing, but it > would save money. > > Michael it would change a bloody lot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 >you're waiting to discover the perfect system? I'm waiting for it to come along, and until it does I will never claim to have the answer. >you waiting to do something ... >you're going to discover it ... I never said that. I just mean I'm not going to jump on the Marxist band wagon, or whatever else, when I think it is equally flawed as the current system. Until I hear of (or come up with) a better system then I am not going to support one that is bad, just in different ways. >and it's perfect ... Not perfect, better. >amazing.... we should make you king! Well yeah, that's a given. > > Getting rid of the monarchy would not change a thing, but it > > would save money. > >it would change a bloody lot! How? We'd still be a parliamentary democracy. Overthrowing the monarchy is different to overthrowing the government. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 There are all these *Just Listen to Janey* messages in my inbox. Anyone fancy changing the subject line as I haven't been discussing this today, and the subject line should reflect the topic, not me! J x - " Mavreela " <nec.lists Friday, April 12, 2002 2:00 PM RE: Just Listen to Janey! > > >are you looking for a more socialist representation of the people M as an > >answer? ... > > It may just sound crazy, but you know what, I don't have the answer. I'm > still waiting to discover that perfect system but both the current one and > all the touted alternatives are flawed. > > >since we know that a presidency has its faults and the monarchy has its > >faults... why would we want either? > > My point is simply that the monarchy serves not constitutional function and > so if we remove them the government would carry on the same without anyone > in its place. But whenever the matter is discussed all everyone says is > " but if we get rid of the monarchy then we'd have a president which would > be worse " . No we wouldn't. It's just an excuse to make the monarchy seem > the lesser of two evils. > > Getting rid of the monarchy would not change a thing, but it would save money. > > Michael > > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2002 Report Share Posted April 13, 2002 Mavreela wrote: > > >So, who would you like to have elected President? More to the point, who > >do you think would get the job? > > Wow, when I said I don't understand why people automatically assume that in > dropping a monarchy we would have to have a president I never thought that > Ian would be one of them. > > Michael Most international conventions are keyed into the idea of a head of state. What are the practical alternatives to an elected head of state? If you weren't planning to call an elected head of state a monarchy, what were you calling him or her? (Apart from Mary Robertson. But we can't all be that lucky.) -- Ian McDonald http://www.mcdonald.me.uk/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.