Why does the UK still have a monarch?

[Liberty4eva]

As someone who lives outside of the UK, I would like to know why the UK still has a monarch. If I was to guess the answer to my own question I think it would be something like "the UK has always had a monarch. It's tradition and it would be strange if it didn't have one" or something like that. But this is the 21st century and especially with our economies suffering I wonder why the British people overwelmingly seem to put up with supporting the lavish lifestyles of this super-wealthy family through their taxes.

[Omah]

As someone who lives outside of the UK, I would like to know why the UK still has a monarch. If I was to guess the answer to my own question I think it would be something like "the UK has always had a monarch. It's tradition and it would be strange if it didn't have one" or something like that. But this is the 21st century and especially with our economies suffering I wonder why the British people overwelmingly seem to put up with supporting the lavish lifestyles of this super-wealthy family through their taxes.

They don't :

Parliament meets much of the sovereign's official expenditure from public funds, known as the Civil List and the Grants-in-Aid. An annual Property Services Grant-in-Aid pays for the upkeep of the royal residences, and an annual Royal Travel Grant-in-Aid pays for travel. The Civil List covers most expenses, including those for staffing, state visits, public engagements, and official entertainment. Its size is fixed by Parliament every 10 years; any money saved may be carried forward to the next 10-year period.

Until 1760 the monarch met all official expenses from hereditary revenues, which included the profits of the Crown Estate (the royal property portfolio). King George III agreed to surrender the hereditary revenues of the Crown in return for the Civil List, and this arrangement persists. In modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have by far exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid provided to the monarch. For example, the Crown Estate produced £200 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2007–8, whereas parliamentary funding for the monarch was £40 million during the same period. The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom, worth over £7.3 billion.

Like the Crown Estate, the land and assets of the Duchy of Lancaster are held in trust. The revenues of the Duchy form part of the Privy Purse, and are used for expenses not borne by the Civil List. The Duchy of Cornwall is a similar estate held in trust to meet the expenses of the monarch's eldest son. The sovereign is subject to indirect taxes such as value added tax, and since 1993 the Queen has paid income tax and capital gains tax on personal income. The Civil List and Grants-in-Aid are not treated as income as they are solely for official expenditure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Finances

[Tom4784]

The Royals do the business when it comes to Tourism, there's a lot of international interest in them. You've also got the whole tradition aspect although there's quite a lot of opposition to them, they're very divisive among the public.

I'm personally not that fussed either way.

[Stu]

I reckon most British people now see them more as some oddball entertainment institution more than anything else. Like Reality TV stars. Highly paid ones.

[MTVN]

Well I think it's partly down to tradition, but also because it's economically beneficial with the money they bring in through tourism. I think most of the population are just indifferent towards them now, few are avidly opposed or in support of the Monarchy

[Liberty4eva]

So some people think the tourism helps but the people who go to Buckingham Palace don't get to see the Queen personally so that's not the reason they go there.

[InOne]

Where you from, America?

[MTVN]

So some people think the tourism helps but the people who go to Buckingham Palace don't get to see the Queen personally so that's not the reason they go there.

It's a big part of it, there are certain tourist attractions which only exist because of the Royal Family, the Changing of the Guard being the most obvious one

Are you an American? Isnt there a huge interest in the Royal Family over there? There certainly is in a lot of European countries, especially Germany

[Stu]

Alex is lost :wink:.

[Omah]

So some people think the tourism helps but the people who go to Buckingham Palace don't get to see the Queen personally so that's not the reason they go there.

Don't forget Windsor Castle ..... ;)

[InOne]

Alex is lost :wink:.

Yeah was gonna ask if it was a relation :joker:

[Shasown]

Why in the 21st century, with selective breeding, gene screening, easy abortions etc does America still produce so many wuckfits?

[Omah]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325990/Obamas-200m-day-India-visit-picked-US-taxpayers.html

The visit - part of a 10-trip to Asia - will take place amid unprecedented levels of security in the city of Mumbai, where terrorists killed at least 173 people two years ago.

Extreme measures to ensure the safety of President Obama will include the complete booking of the 570-room Taj Mahal Hotel for his security entourage.

The building saw some of the fiercest fighting between Islamic militant gunmen and security forces during the November 2008 atrocity.

Other precautions include the use of helicopters, US and Indian Navy ships to patrol the Mumbai waterfront and the use of sophisticated surveillance equipment.

Sort of puts the Queen's "petty cash" into perspective, doesn't it ?

;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

Poverty in the United States is cyclical in nature with roughly 13 to 17% of Americans living below the federal poverty line at any given point in time, and roughly 40% falling below the poverty line at some point within a 10-year time span. Poverty is defined as the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions. Approximately 43.6 million Americans were living in poverty in 2009, up from 39.8 million in 2008.

Ironic, huh ..... :rolleyes:

[Liberty4eva]

It's a big part of it, there are certain tourist attractions which only exist because of the Royal Family, the Changing of the Guard being the most obvious one

Are you an American? Isnt there a huge interest in the Royal Family over there? There certainly is in a lot of European countries, especially Germany

I suppose there is a casual interest in the Queen to some people in the US but I don't think it's a lot. I'm pretty sure at least 95% of the people who visit the UK from the US do it for other reasons. Interesting that you said there's a lot of interest in the Royals from the Germans because the Royal Family have their roots in Germany.

[Pyramid*]

So some people think the tourism helps but the people who go to Buckingham Palace don't get to see the Queen personally so that's not the reason they go there.

Conversely, tourists visit Washington DC to 'go' to the Whitehouse, take the tour....... I wonder why they bother doing that? Hardly as if Obama is going to ask them to join him for a morning bagel? Yep, no reason for any person to go visit the Whitehouse either eh...but still they do.

Completely off topic, but can anyone confirm where the word 'dumb' originated?

[Omah]

Conversely, tourists visit Washington DC to 'go' to the Whitehouse, take the tour....... I wonder why they bother doing that? Hardly as if Obama is going to ask them to join him for a morning bagel? Yep, no reason for any person to go visit the Whitehouse either eh...but still they do.

Completely off topic, but can anyone confirm where the word 'dumb' originated?

http://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?dumb

Origin: AS. Dumb; akin to D. Dom stupid, dumb, Sw. Dumb, Goth. Dumbs; cf. Gr. Blind. See Deaf, and cf. Dummy.

[Pyramid*]

http://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?dumb

lol. Thanks but not really needed!

I was being facetious. Since some appear to be more 'lost' than others. ;)



" For this change in meaning, it appears that the Germans are responsible. German has a similar and related word dumm that means "stupid," and over time, as a result of the waves of German immigrants to the United States, it has come to influence the meaning of English dumb. This is one of dozens of marks left by German on American English.

[Benjamin]

I have no issue with the Royal Family, they are part of our British traditional culture, and since we seem to be losing a lot of our identity in other areas, I'm actually glad we still have them here.

[Patrick]

I don't know it's something they like to show off, I very rarely agree with you 'Liberty4Eva' when it comes to Big Brother.

But I agree here, it's Silly.
It's not as if The Queen does anything.

Pat Butcher is more useful to The United Kingdom.

[Shasown]

It's not as if The Queen does anything.

Pat Butcher is more useful to The United Kingdom.

And you would know that how?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/Queensworkingday.aspx

Not everyones life revolves around BB, serial dramas and masturbation Patrick.

[Benjamin]

And you would know that how?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/Queensworkingday.aspx

Not everyones life revolves around BB, serial dramas and masturbation Patrick.

:laugh2:

[Omah]

And you would know that how?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/Queensworkingday.aspx

Not everyones life revolves around BB, serial dramas and masturbation Patrick.

:cheer2:

[Shaun]

it's quite harmless I suppose. Noone really cares about them - just an excuse for the occasional national holiday and some extra (odd) tourists.

[Angus]

As someone who lives outside of the UK, I would like to know why the UK still has a monarch. If I was to guess the answer to my own question I think it would be something like "the UK has always had a monarch. It's tradition and it would be strange if it didn't have one" or something like that. But this is the 21st century and especially with our economies suffering I wonder why the British people overwelmingly seem to put up with supporting the lavish lifestyles of this super-wealthy family through their taxes.

We have a monarch because we still want one. The royal family represent what's left of our traditions and heritage and they contribute as much financially to the economy of this country as they may take from it. It's a symbiotic relationship. Furthermore, the Queen is a taxpayer (since 1993) just like the rest of us. Being an American you can't be expected to understand a country like ours, steeped in history and tradition, seeing as you have so little of your own, most of which is nothing to be proud of as it happens.

Would we want a Presidential style autocracy, with the endemic corruption that entails? Err, no thanks. The British Monarchy is a constitutional monarchy in which the King or Queen reigns as Head of State but with limits to their power, and the day-to-day government is carried out by Parliament. All far more civilised than the unseemly bunfight Americans undertake, where the wealthiest contender with the best connections and most influential backing ends up as President.

[Jessica.]

I think it's absolutely mental how some people view the royal family as great people who must be respected no matter what, I know that's rare now but there's still a few.

I think it's nice that there is a royal family, it's quite cool, I just don't think they are any more special than any other celebrities

[joeysteele]

Its our History and while its true hoards of Tourists do flock to Buckingham Palace and other Royal residences but will never see a member of the Royal Family, they still hope they may just get a glimpse.

I would not like the UK to become a Republic and have a President,no thank you. Our Monarchy has survived when most others have fallen but the full power of the Monarch we have was taken away over history and I think that because the ruling Monarch does not make decisions of policy etc then that is why its still held in greater esteem in the UK.

Its a symbol of stability and continuity to the majority of the UKs population and long may it remain so.

[Barbie]

I think its just something that's just there, no need to get rid of it. Anyway it does help tourism

[ILoveTRW]

For one the UK wouldn't be called the UK without a monarch.

[Liberty4eva]

For one the UK wouldn't be called the UK without a monarch.

I think you could still be called a "Kingdom" without actually being a Kingdom. If Greenland can call itself Green (when it's covered in ice) and the Democratic Republic of North Korea can call itself Democratic, I think the UK can call itself a Kingdom without fuss.

[Omah]

I think you could still be called a "Kingdom" without actually being a Kingdom. If Greenland can call itself Green (when it's covered in ice) and the Democratic Republic of North Korea can call itself Democratic, I think the UK can call itself a Kingdom without fuss.

Not just "a" kingdom but "the" United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ..... ;)

[Angus]

I think you could still be called a "Kingdom" without actually being a Kingdom. If Greenland can call itself Green (when it's covered in ice) and the Democratic Republic of North Korea can call itself Democratic, I think the UK can call itself a Kingdom without fuss.

Just like the ironically named "United States of America":laugh:

[Livia]

So some people think the tourism helps but the people who go to Buckingham Palace don't get to see the Queen personally so that's not the reason they go there.

It's not just about going to Buckingham Palace. The Royal Family host lots of foreign heads of state and leaders of trade and industry. They bring in much more money than they cost us.

[Shasown]

I think you could still be called a "Kingdom" without actually being a Kingdom. If Greenland can call itself Green (when it's covered in ice) and the Democratic Republic of North Korea can call itself Democratic, I think the UK can call itself a Kingdom without fuss.

Greenland has been called Greenland since the 10th Century.

Legend has it it was named Greenland by Eric the Red so as to entice settlers to move there.

Incidentally the southern half of Greenland does have lots of green vegetation during the summer.

[Liberty4eva]

Just like the ironically named "United States of America":laugh:

I don't know if I understand what you're getting at. Is the US not united?

[Liberty4eva]

I've been going back and forth on whether I should show the following video. I guess it may give some insight into how some American's perceive the queen and royalty in general (it's not pretty). Radio host hothead Alex Jones rips the queen a new one and I'm not sure how much of this he seriously believes. It's gonna offend some people but I personally think it's funny. :colour:

PEZY6630v-U

[Chuck]

I think some of his comments are rather unnecessary regardless of his opinion on Monarchy. To say that the Queen is piece of trash is just stupid, disrespectul and silly.

[Omah]

I don't know if I understand what you're getting at. Is the US not united?

It's just a bunch of "states" on the same sub-continent - sparsely inhabited, self-governing "kingdoms", for the most part, with vast natural resources, arbitrarily separated on a map, but bound together by self-interest, just like the (old) USSR ..... if "self-determination" takes hold in the U.S, the states will not be so "united" ..... ;)

[Angus]

I don't know if I understand what you're getting at. Is the US not united?


Thought it might go over your head:rolleyes:

[Grimnir]

We should get rid of both parliament and monarchy. The whole system we have currently is pathetic.

Instead we should have system where there is a democratically elected king.

They serve for one year.

Each year any member of the public can put themselves forward, write manifesto and campaign. Then the public vote.

This system much more democratic and the country will be in a much better state of affairs.

The people will have complete control.

[Angus]

I've been going back and forth on whether I should show the following video. I guess it may give some insight into how some American's perceive the queen and royalty in general (it's not pretty). Radio host hothead Alex Jones rips the queen a new one and I'm not sure how much of this he seriously believes. It's gonna offend some people but I personally think it's funny. :colour:

PEZY6630v-U

Oh dear, I doubt anyone could be offended by such childish and immature attempts at satire and humour, particularly from Americans from who we routinely expect such vulgarity and blatant envy (yes, Envy). I just felt embarrassed for Alex Jones as he cringingly displays his total ignorance about our monarchy and constitution. Aww, but YOU think he's funny! Bless:pat: Can't begrudge you that at all since Americans have been a laughing stock to us Brits for decades:hugesmile:

Mr Jones could use some lessons on how to be funny without making himself look like a complete tool. I suggest he watch Spitting Image and Jeanette Charles, effortless hilarity, without the need to be gratuitously vulgar and rude under the guise of "humour".

[lostalex]

Alex is lost :wink:.

It's not me. I was patiently waiting out my ban. i swear.



Anyways, in terms of this topic. My only explaination for the love of the monarchy is the same reason why Americans love/loathe paris hilton and the kardashians.

We love celebrities! well, more accurately, we love to hate celebrities!

The royal family are just kind of the built in celebrities of the UK. Just like Paris Hilton, or The Kennedy family, or the Kardashians.

The Windsors are the Hiltons of the British Isles.

[Beastie]

It's not me. I was patiently waiting out my ban. i swear.



Anyways, in terms of this topic. My only explaination for the love of the monarchy is the same reason why Americans love/loathe paris hilton and the kardashians.

We love celebrities! well, more accurately, we love to hate celebrities!

The royal family are just kind of the built in celebrities of the UK. Just like Paris Hilton, or The Kennedy family, or the Kardashians.

The Windsors are the Hiltons of the British Isles.

Err no. Because Paris Hilton does bugger all in her life whilst Prince Harry and William are doing something useful and training in the RAF.

[lostalex]

Err no. Because Paris Hilton does bugger all in her life whilst Prince Harry and William are doing something useful and training in the RAF.

Riiight, cause we all know Harry and Wiliam's experience in the military is EXACTLY like that of any other recruit, right??? if you believe that, then you're even dumber than you look.

Look up the word "propaganda" in the Oxford dictionary plzzz.

[Beastie]

Riiight, cause we all know Harry and Wiliam's experience in the military is EXACTLY like that of any other recruit, right??? if you believe that, then you're even dumber than you look.

Look up the word "propaganda" in the Oxford dictionary plzzz.

You don't even know what I look like! All I know is that Prince Harry and William have done a lot more good and useful things than the sight of talentless Kardishans and Paris Hilton.....

[lostalex]

You don't even know what I look like! All I know is that Prince Harry and William have done a lot more good and useful things than the sight of talentless Kardishans and Paris Hilton.....

okay, but do they deserve their wealth any more than paris hilton or the kardashians?

no.

[Beastie]

okay, but do they deserve their wealth any more than paris hilton or the kardashians?

no.

Probably not but it doesn't matter how much money you have.. it's what you do!

Although I agree that EVERY rich person who earns more than a certain sum of money should be taxed more.

[lostalex]

Well i agree with you on that.

The more you have received, the more you owe. I certainly agree with that.

[Beastie]

Well i agree with you on that.

The more you have received, the more you owe. I certainly agree with that.

Yeah. I know that there are a few rich people who have worked hard for their millions.... but still think they should pay more tax. Especially bloody footballers!!

I also think Inheritance tax should be scrapped though. Like when you die.. then your money is given to someone and that money is also taxed on?? Ridiculous when you have paid for taxes all your life!

[Scarlett.]

To compare the Queen to utter scum like the Kardashians and Paris Hilton is just stupid, unless I missed that TV show where the Queen went around shouting in a loud annoying accent about pointless ****

[Tom4784]

I've been going back and forth on whether I should show the following video. I guess it may give some insight into how some American's perceive the queen and royalty in general (it's not pretty). Radio host hothead Alex Jones rips the queen a new one and I'm not sure how much of this he seriously believes. It's gonna offend some people but I personally think it's funny. :colour:

PEZY6630v-U

They're both ignorant shock jocks that are caught up their own arses. Everything that say translates to 'Look at me! i'm saying something shocking! Pay me attention because I want to be Howard stern!'

The only offensive thing about that video is their stupidity.

[lostalex]

To compare the Queen to utter scum like the Kardashians and Paris Hilton is just stupid, unless I missed that TV show where the Queen went around shouting in a loud annoying accent about pointless ****

Wasn't there some reality show where the royals competed in sporting events? i forget what it was called. It definitely happened though.

And plenty of people would say that the royals have annoying accents.

[Angus]

WTF! Why is our Queen hosting a state visit of the Obamas in May as if THEY are royalty? Let them go stay at the Hilton or Travelodge for all I care, the Brit hating, Democrat scumbags or, at the very least, pay the going rate at Buck House. Good to know they haven't been invited to the Royal Wedding at least - that would have been a travesty.

[lostalex]

Can you imagine the fuel that would give republicans if the Obama's went to the royal wedding?


The Republicans would claim he's taking a vacation on the taxpayers dime to prop up undemocratic despots.

[Shasown]

Wasn't there some reality show where the royals competed in sporting events? i forget what it was called. It definitely happened though.

And plenty of people would say that the royals have annoying accents.

The Grand Knockout.

Hardly a reality TV show http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Knockout_Tournament

Can you imagine the fuel that would give republicans if the Obama's went to the royal wedding?


The Republicans would claim he's taking a vacation on the taxpayers dime to prop up undemocratic despots.

The same undemocratic despots that Reagan would have been propping up in 1981, if he hadnt been recovering from lead poisoning.

[lostalex]

Reagan did love Britain. No doubt about that.

I'm not a Reagan fan.

But i suppose your point is that the Republicans would be hypocrites to attack Obama over it. That's never stopped them before though.

[Shasown]

Reagan did love Britain. No doubt about that.

I'm not a Reagan fan.

But i suppose your point is that the Republicans would be hypocrites to attack Obama over it. That's never stopped them before though.

Yeah an American trait I suppose.

Never mind though we still love our little colonial offspring.

[lostalex]

Yeah an American trait I suppose.

Never mind though we still love our little colonial offspring.
You do realize that the majority of US states have no historical connection to the UK right? 13 states were british colonies.

13 out of 50.
(14 if you count hawaii, but it was a very different colonial experience in hawaii than the 13 originals)

[Shasown]

You do realize that the majority of US states have no historical connection to the UK right? 13 states were british colonies.

13 out of 50.
(14 if you count hawaii, but it was a very different colonial experience in hawaii than the 13 originals)

An interesting perspective, incidentally, remind me how many states were there at the time of the American Revolution?

You do realise if it wasnt for the UK and France there would be no United States?

I love the fact if it wasnt for French assistance your Revolution would have been little more than an unruly uprising and quashed. That must really hurt your pride.

[lostalex]

An interesting perspective, incidentally, remind me how many states were there at the time of the American Revolution?

You do realise if it wasnt for the UK and France there would be no United States?

I love the fact if it wasnt for French assistance your Revolution would have been little more than an unruly uprising and quashed. That must really hurt your pride.

and You do realize if it weren't for American intervention, you'd be a former soviet republic right now.

[Liberty4eva]

An interesting perspective, incidentally, remind me how many states were there at the time of the American Revolution?

You do realise if it wasnt for the UK and France there would be no United States?

I love the fact if it wasnt for French assistance your Revolution would have been little more than an unruly uprising and quashed. That must really hurt your pride.

Not really. I've studied the Revolution and saying America couldn't have done it without France (while true) is kind of like saying Frodo couldn't have destroyed The Ring of Power without Gollum. France wanted America to be independent but they also wanted to screw America by making it weak, decentralized, and (most importantly) dependent on France. But neither France nor the UK got what they wanted. The Revolution is really a classic example of a group of amateurs outsmarting the two superpowers of the day. I take pride in that.

[lostalex]

You could just as easily say that Without the American revolution, there would not have been the French revolution.

France and America liberated each other.

[Shasown]

and You do realize if it weren't for American intervention, you'd be a former soviet republic right now.

Oh do be serious.

Without a combined invasion to form the Western front during World War II its highly likely the Soviet offensives would have lost momentum and eventually ground to a halt. Forcing a stalemate.

That would have left the UK safely buffered from the Soviets by the Axis.

[Liberty4eva]

and You do realize if it weren't for American intervention, you'd be a former soviet republic right now.

Let's not get into this kind of argument. It's childish. Besides, the Brit James Bond saved the US countless times from the Soviets so we owe a debt to them. :joker:

[Shasown]

Let's not get into this kind of argument. It's childish. Besides, the Brit James Bond saved the US countless times from the Soviets so we owe a debt to them. :joker:

Not just Smersh but Spectre as well.

And dont you forget it. :wink:

[Liberty4eva]

You could just as easily say that Without the American revolution, there would not have been the French revolution.

France and America liberated each other.

The difference between the French and American Revolutions is the guy who led the American one walked away from power while the guy who led the French one made himself dictator. The American one was about liberty but the French one ended up being just a mess.

[lostalex]

The difference between the French and American Revolutions is the guy who led the American one walked away from power while the guy who led the French one made himself dictator. The American one was about liberty but the French one ended up being just a mess.

details, details... lol :P

We both over turned tyranny in the late 18th century though. And those revolutions have been the inspiration for every democratic uprising since.

[BB_Eye]

Because it helps our economy by boosting sales of the Daily Express.

[lostalex]

Harry > William imho.

much more bang for your buck.

[Liberty4eva]

details, details... lol :P

We both over turned tyranny in the late 18th century though. And those revolutions have been the inspiration for every democratic uprising since.

Every democratic uprising since? That might be stretching it especially since the US has in recent decades has helped dictators squash democratic uprisings (Egypt, anyone?). And anyways, the government we have today in 2011 is much, much more tyrannical and hostile to liberty than the British one the founders fought against in 1776 which kind of defeats the purpose of the Revolution.

[lostalex]

Every democratic uprising since? That might be stretching it especially since the US has in recent decades has helped dictators squash democratic uprisings (Egypt, anyone?). And anyways, the government we have today in 2011 is much, much more tyrannical and hostile to liberty than the British one the founders fought against in 1776 which kind of defeats the purpose of the Revolution.
i'm sorry but yur wrong. The US is supporting diplomatic programs all over the world, including in dictatorships, supporting the people and their dissenting voices. There is plenty of evidence of the US supporting dissidents in not only Egypt but all over the arab world.

Yes we have to deal with those dictatorships while they have power, but we are always supporting democracy behind the scenes as well.

It's not black and white. And i think you know that. don't play dumb with me.

[Liberty4eva]

i'm sorry but yur wrong. The US is supporting diplomatic programs all over the world, including in dictatorships, supporting the people and their dissenting voices. There is plenty of evidence of the US supporting dissidents in not only Egypt but all over the arab world.
Yes we have to deal with those dictatorships while they have power, but we are always supporting democracy behind the scenes as well.

It's not black and white. And i think you know that. don't play dumb with me.

We'll give token words of support when uprisings do occur.
But when those uprisings are suppressed with American made weapons that speaks volumes. We're for democracy in Arab countries to the extent that it will give us the guy we want in power. Remember how when Bush kept blabbering on about how wonderful democratic elections in Palestine would be until Hamas won and then he shut up about it? And I expect this Egypt uprising episode will confirm my theory when the latest dictator (probably from the American funded Egyptian military) emerges to power.

[lostalex]

So yur blaming Bush for the fact that Arabs voted for a fascist islamist homophobic misogynist party?

Are you suggesting that we should support democracy over human rights? i disagree.

[lostalex]

there is no democracy without human rights.

[Liberty4eva]

So yur blaming Bush for the fact that Arabs voted for a fascist islamist homophobic misogynist party?

Are you suggesting that we should support democracy over human rights? i disagree.

Human rights? You really do believe this, don't you? If anything we support human rights less than democracy. I'm sure the Arabs at Guantanamo Bay and all the secret prisons we have around the world would agree with me. The last administration openly supported torture. Remember how Cheney played this disgusting word game saying that waterboarding was "enhanced interogation" and not torture? And anyways I'm sure many Arabs would argue that Hamas is for the human rights of the Palestinian people as a whole as they want to stop living under Israel's boot.

Personally I don't think we should either support democracy or dictorship around the world. I think we should stay out of other country's affairs. The Iranian people actually like us and want to emulate parts of our culture because we don't really boss them around.

[lostalex]

Human rights? You really do believe this, don't you? If anything we support human rights less than democracy. I'm sure the Arabs at Guantanamo Bay and all the secret prisons we have around the world would agree with me. The last administration openly supported torture. Remember how Cheney played this disgusting word game saying that waterboarding was "enhanced interogation" and not torture? And anyways I'm sure many Arabs would argue that Hamas is for the human rights of the Palestinian people as a whole as they want to stop living under Israel's boot.

Personally I don't think we should either support democracy or dictorship around the world. I think we should stay out of other country's affairs. The Iranian people actually like us and want to emulate parts of our culture because we don't really boss them around.
terrorists are not humans. When you commit a felony crime you give up your rights, voluntarily.

[lostalex]

cheney was not playing word games. He was doing his job, as vice-president, protecting american lives.

If waterboarding saved just one american life, it was worth it.

[lostalex]

A million arabs lives are worth saving 1 american life. IMO.

[Liberty4eva]

terrorists are not humans. When you commit a felony crime you give up your rights, voluntarily.

OMG. And "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply?

[Liberty4eva]

A million arabs lives are worth saving 1 american life. IMO.

At this point I think it's obvious I'm in a debate with someone who is not to be taken seriously. Good day.

[Shasown]

details, details... lol :P

We both over turned tyranny in the late 18th century though. And those revolutions have been the inspiration for every democratic uprising since.

Does that include the Russian Revolution?

terrorists are not humans. When you commit a felony crime you give up your rights, voluntarily.

And of course no American has ever committed a felony.

cheney was not playing word games. He was doing his job, as vice-president, protecting american lives.

If waterboarding saved just one american life, it was worth it.

Dont get angry then when similar methods are used against Americans.

A million arabs lives are worth saving 1 american life. IMO.

Do you ever think that some arabs may also have the exact opposite thought, a million American lives for 1 Arab?

Scratch that question, just the first four words are enough really.

Do you ever think?

[lostalex]

*smiles sweetly*

[Angus]

terrorists are not humans. When you commit a felony crime you give up your rights, voluntarily.

One man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter - it's all in the perception. I'm sure the Americans are perceived as terrorists in many parts of the world.