Main > Everything Else
7 dead 16 wounded at attack on Dutch queensday.
Grasshopper:
And the really advanced students use this map.
Dartful Dodger:
--- Quote from: Grasshopper on May 05, 2009, 06:28:40 pm ---Of course they do and here's the map to prove it.
--- End quote ---
Why is the part of the USA above Michigan green and uninhabited?
patrickl:
--- Quote from: Level42 on May 05, 2009, 05:20:13 pm ---Geez, do I really have to explain how a modern-day kingdom works ?
Do they actually teach _anything_ about other countries over there ?
The king/queen in our country only has a ceremonial role. He/She has _nothing_ to say about how the country is run. We have a democraticaly elected government with a prime-minister.
--- End quote ---
Now, now, that really understates the role that the queen has in our government. Her most visible and constitutional role is during the formation of a new government, but she's also a very influential adviser to the government. She has more power than she uses though.
Many countries have a president and a prime minister or a monarch and a prime minister. For instance Putin is now the prime minister of Russia where before he was the president. I don't think having a monarch is worse than having both roles electable.
shmokes:
I would say it is considerably worse. It doesn't matter how big a --cream-filled twinkie-- the person is. He gets the job based solely on who his parents are. And the people have no choice. Why in god's name would I want that person advising my country's leader?
But what's worse is the absurd cost of such a useless resource. Last I heard, supporting the royal family in England was pushing $90 million a year. That's just wellfare. It's a bunch of people who aren't required to do anything but live off taxpayer dollars (or pounds, I suppose). To the tune of ---smurfing--- $90 million a year!?!?!? Seriously embarassing. Something tells me that the Prime Minister of England isn't even making a tenth that much money, and he . . . ya know . . . has an actual job.
patrickl:
--- Quote from: shmokes on May 06, 2009, 09:32:15 am ---I would say it is considerably worse. It doesn't matter how big a --cream-filled twinkie-- the person is. He gets the job based solely on who his parents are. And the people have no choice. Why in god's name would I want that person advising my country's leader?
But what's worse is the absurd cost of such a useless resource. Last I heard, supporting the royal family in England was pushing $90 million a year. That's just wellfare. It's a bunch of people who aren't required to do anything but live off taxpayer dollars (or pounds, I suppose). To the tune of ---smurfing--- $90 million a year!?!?!? Seriously embarassing. Something tells me that the Prime Minister of England isn't even making a tenth that much money, and he . . . ya know . . . has an actual job.
--- End quote ---
Yeah I guess. You hugely underestimate the usefulness and competence of the royal family though. Being a royal really is a job.
Besides, the royal family is elected. Or rather, we could elect to get rid of them.
Lastly, don't compare overall cost with salary. Add the protection, representation, travel and whatever expenses to the prime ministers salary and you end up with a considerable figure too. How much does Obama cost the US tax payer?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version