NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Completely Off-Topic => Topic started by: Si on November 07, 2003, 10:02:48 am
-
He denied having anything to do with 'the scandal'
LOL
Nobody knew what it was, but rumors say he was caught being in bed with one of his lackies (sp??), one Michael something
The British newspaper wanted to publish the story, but was ordered not to, by some court
*sigh
Those British royal people always think of new ways to get in the news
;)
They're so funny
Always make me laugh
-
I apologize for my lack of worldy knowledge, and ive heard of them, but who exactly are the lackies?
-
Charlie is a dumbass...I wouldn't be surprised if he was caught in bed with a squirrel :roll:
-
Charlie is a dumbass...I wouldn't be surprised if he was caught in bed with a squirrel :roll:
Squirrels are funny. :mrgreen:
-
somehow, I do NOT want to read the 'tell all' book on this one
-
I have no idea what actually happened, because there was a court injunction against it- so Si, is that what happened? And lackies? That makes no sense to me.
-
Charlie is a dumbass...I wouldn't be surprised if he was caught in bed with a squirrel :roll:
Squirrels are funny. :mrgreen:
They sure are... :lol:
-
I have no idea what actually happened, because there was a court injunction against it- so Si, is that what happened? And lackies? That makes no sense to me.
Lackies, servants, no?
And, I don't know if that's what happened, that is what rumors say
-
he was rumored to be caught in bed with a male servant.
I hate the royal family and everything they stand for, they are a bunch of german tourists who do nothin but cut ribbons and smile and wave. They have no power, Englands keeping them 'cause it's traditional I say throw them out and put Tony Blair in buckingham palace at least he has some power.
-
he was rumored to be caught in bed with a male servant.
o_O
I hate the royal family and everything they stand for, they are a bunch of german tourists who do nothin but cut ribbons and smile and wave. They have no power, Englands keeping them 'cause it's traditional I say throw them out and put Tony Blair in buckingham palace at least he has some power.
I do agree, i hate them too. Did you see the Salon the other day? The royal correspondant got his haircut on there and said the "Mafia have nothing on our royal family."
They do serve their role though. I hate them, but i do NOT want a presidential system by any means.
-
Maybe you can answer a question for me. I was under the impression that the royal family in England had no real power, other than being figureheads and the power that money brings.
What are their responsibilities? What kind of powers do they have? What do you think would happen if they stepped down from power?
And I'm wondering, what do you personally have against a presidential system? Don't like how it works out in the US?
-
Maybe you can answer a question for me. I was under the impression that the royal family in England had no real power, other than being figureheads and the power that money brings.
What are their responsibilities? What kind of powers do they have? What do you think would happen if they stepped down from power?
Well, they do have power. But kind of false power if you see what i mean. Let me explain myself: The Queen opens parliament each year and makes a speech outlining the main proposed bills for the parliamentry session. She also has to sign each bill for them to be instated into law. She also has final decision over whether to approve the prime minister into his position.
So in that respect she does have power. But the fact is, if she refused to sign a certain bill into parliament, she would be thrown out. If she refused to approve the prime minister, she would be thrown out.
She is a constitutional monarch.
And I'm wondering, what do you personally have against a presidential system? Don't like how it works out in the US?
I couldn't hate the idea more of having a president. The monarch almost acts as a buffer to ensure the PM doesn't feel like he is totally in charge of the whole of the country. And obviously, he IS but he isn't head of state. I hate the royal family- i hate them a LOT, they take our taxes so the queen can wear a new ugly outfit everyday but i despise the idea of having a president.
-
I kinda like the monarchy...I've always just been fascinated with how its been maintained throughout so many centuries...and even though theres all these scandals...I think charles' sons are unfucked up enough that that might end, I hope. I think its a good way to preserve some of the traditions of the culture at the very least. Also, I just have this strange affection for the Queen, probably cause shes a woman, and so amiable. She is technically the Queen of Canada too :) as we're a constitutional monarchy also. Shes on all the bills and coins etc. and her representative in Canada has to sign all the bills and such, and make speeches just like she does in Britain. Its kinda neat...and yes it is sort of a buffer for the government.
but charles and a male servant...thats juicy.
and btw rosie I love your sig ;) purdy
-
and btw rosie I love your sig ;) purdy
Why thankyou my dear! Le wonderful Scott made it.
-
he was rumored to be caught in bed with a male servant.
yeah, I think his name was Michael something
I think Prince Willy and his brother will do well
Maybe not make a mess like their father did, lol
-
he was rumored to be caught in bed with a male servant.
yeah, I think his name was Michael something
I think Prince Willy and his brother will do well
Maybe not make a mess like their father did, lol
we can only hope... :lol:
-
LOL
You're right
*hopes
Btw, you're probably the oldest person on this board, Alecs
;)
-
Soooo Rosie, lemme get this straight. The Queen is a yesman who can be replaced if she doesn't say yes? I still don't get how this would be a buffer. I have to admit ignorance on your specific form of goverment.
And yes, a presidential system does have it's buffers too. The president cannot propose legislation. He needs the approval of congress to use military power. Also, he is kinda like a yesman. All legislation passed by congress is signed into law by him. He can choose not to sign it. Congress can override him by voting on the legislation again. If it passes with a 2/3ds supermajority, it goes into law anyway.
The three branch federal system is a great one in theory. But the problem is that some branches grow more powerful than others. For example, I believe that the Executive branch is waaaayyyy too powerful now. Also, the Federal goverment has been infringing on the powers of state goverments for far too long, wasting far too much tax money with duplication of effort and some people applying what is best for their region to the rest of the country. It doesn't matter if those actions would be disasterous elsewhere.
-
Soooo Rosie, lemme get this straight. The Queen is a yesman who can be replaced if she doesn't say yes? I still don't get how this would be a buffer. I have to admit ignorance on your specific form of goverment.
And yes, a presidential system does have it's buffers too. The president cannot propose legislation. He needs the approval of congress to use military power. Also, he is kinda like a yesman. All legislation passed by congress is signed into law by him. He can choose not to sign it. Congress can override him by voting on the legislation again. If it passes with a 2/3ds supermajority, it goes into law anyway.
The three branch federal system is a great one in theory. But the problem is that some branches grow more powerful than others. For example, I believe that the Executive branch is waaaayyyy too powerful now. Also, the Federal goverment has been infringing on the powers of state goverments for far too long, wasting far too much tax money with duplication of effort and some people applying what is best for their region to the rest of the country. It doesn't matter if those actions would be disasterous elsewhere.
I feel the three branch government is compromised by a two party system(a little off topic.) Comments?
tylor
-
I feel the three branch government is compromised by a two party system(a little off topic.) Comments?
Yeah. I've grown more and more fed up with it too. I mean.... I'm more or less a Republican with some strong Libertarian tendancies. That still doesn't mean I support what's going on in congress. It's turned into one giant partisan pissing match.
People need to stop voting for someone because they are Democrat or Republican and vote for the person who they think would do the best job. And in Congress, the congresscritters need to vote on legislation on whether it would be good or bad for the country, rather than if it was proposed by a democrat or republican.
-
I feel the three branch government is compromised by a two party system(a little off topic.) Comments?
Yeah. I've grown more and more fed up with it too. I mean.... I'm more or less a Republican with some strong Libertarian tendancies. That still doesn't mean I support what's going on in congress. It's turned into one giant partisan pissing match.
People need to stop voting for someone because they are Democrat or Republican and vote for the person who they think would do the best job. And in Congress, the congresscritters need to vote on legislation on whether it would be good or bad for the country, rather than if it was proposed by a democrat or republican.
I just feel they have too much power. It has been seen in the past and the present how they discourage political competition from other decent american parties. Competition which would probably benefit the american people.
As far as british politics go she does have real power. The last I heard there is no campaign finance reform there and if she wanted to she could help canidates financially that she likes, for instance. Effectively buying votes in some cases.
tylor
-
And yes, a presidential system does have it's buffers too. The president cannot propose legislation. He needs the approval of congress to use military power. Also, he is kinda like a yesman. All legislation passed by congress is signed into law by him. He can choose not to sign it. Congress can override him by voting on the legislation again. If it passes with a 2/3ds supermajority, it goes into law anyway.
he can use military power for 60 days without the approvel of congress...
People need to stop voting for someone because they are Democrat or Republican and vote for the person who they think would do the best job. And in Congress, the congresscritters need to vote on legislation on whether it would be good or bad for the country, rather than if it was proposed by a democrat or republican.
can I get an amen?
-
but lets get back on subject....he did what? this is interesting....
-
he can use military power for 60 days without the approvel of congress...
I believe that you are refering to the War Powers Resolution over 1973, which can be found in Title 50, Chapter 33 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/ch33.html) of the US Code. It requires that the president present a report to Congress within 48 hours of application of force (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1543.html). It also requires that the armed forces should be removed within 60 days after the report is made, unless Congress declares war, gives the president more time, or Congress cannot meet because of security reasons due to a war (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1544.html).
So you were wrong. :wink: 62 days, if the president stretches things. :-P
-
well I was just going by my lack of paying attention in ELPs (or civics to some)....which I took last year.
-
wow...americans really know their shit about their country :?
-
wow...americans really know their shit about their country :?
Its cos thats all they learn about. *chuckle* I will get back to explaining the 'buffer' later, cos i have an essay to write. lol
-
Charlie is a dumbass...I wouldn't be surprised if he was caught in bed with a squirrel :roll:
I know . . . And it's not like he's attractive. You wonder how he had such a hot son like William. The red head - Henry? - on the other hand . . . :roll:
-
Soooo Rosie, lemme get this straight. The Queen is a yesman who can be replaced if she doesn't say yes? I still don't get how this would be a buffer. I have to admit ignorance on your specific form of goverment.
Yes, she is a yesman who can be replaced if she doesn't say yes. Thats pretty much it. The thing is so won't ever say no, so its not really a problem. The Queen has nothing whatsoever to do with political parties- that acts as a buffer. See below.
And yes, a presidential system does have it's buffers too. The president cannot propose legislation. He needs the approval of congress to use military power. Also, he is kinda like a yesman. All legislation passed by congress is signed into law by him. He can choose not to sign it. Congress can override him by voting on the legislation again. If it passes with a 2/3ds supermajority, it goes into law anyway.
The three branch federal system is a great one in theory. But the problem is that some branches grow more powerful than others. For example, I believe that the Executive branch is waaaayyyy too powerful now. Also, the Federal goverment has been infringing on the powers of state goverments for far too long, wasting far too much tax money with duplication of effort and some people applying what is best for their region to the rest of the country. It doesn't matter if those actions would be disasterous elsewhere.
I don't believe that your system has buffers that act in the same way as ours. The way i see it, is that sections of society are always going to hate the head of state. If the Head of State is neutral it goes some way to keep politics to do with politics. If you hate something that is about the same as an inanimate object (lol) i believe you save your true judgement not for people, but for political policies and parties.
The Queen acts as a sort of fictional tradition- it is her head that is on the coins, her name that court cases are carried out in, her 'Inland Revenue'. I could go on, now what would happen if Blair had his head on the coins? What would happen if it was his name court cases were carried out in? That would create a great deal of friction in our political system. I don't believe anyone here would like it. There is security in knowing that every 4/5 years the figurehead for your country isn't going to change.
A president is a 'yesman' with political strings attatched. A president becomes a target for hatred which can affect people's political stance on issues.
-
People need to stop voting for someone because they are Democrat or Republican and vote for the person who they think would do the best job. And in Congress, the congresscritters need to vote on legislation on whether it would be good or bad for the country, rather than if it was proposed by a democrat or republican.
That is the smartest thing I've heard anyone say. *tear*
-
Charlie is a dumbass...I wouldn't be surprised if he was caught in bed with a squirrel :roll:
I know . . . And it's not like he's attractive. You wonder how he had such a hot son like William. The red head - Henry? - on the other hand . . . :roll:
LOL
(Harry)
Yes, Willy is a hottie, for sure
But he looks a LOT like his mom
Poor Harry....
;)
-
Charlie is a dumbass...I wouldn't be surprised if he was caught in bed with a squirrel :roll:
I know . . . And it's not like he's attractive. You wonder how he had such a hot son like William. The red head - Henry? - on the other hand . . . :roll:
Ermmm ever heard of a little someone called Princess Diana Cece!? Think about it. lol
Oh and he's called Harry.
EDIT: haha at us Hollandish chum! We wrote almost exactly the same post. lol
-
Thanks for the explanation Rosie. I'm going to have to learn way more. :)
-
Charlie is a dumbass...I wouldn't be surprised if he was caught in bed with a squirrel :roll:
I know . . . And it's not like he's attractive. You wonder how he had such a hot son like William. The red head - Henry? - on the other hand . . . :roll:
Ermmm ever heard of a little someone called Princess Diana Cece!? Think about it. lol
Oh and he's called Harry.
EDIT: haha at us Hollandish chum! We wrote almost exactly the same post. lol
Welllllll, yeah - Of course I know who Princess Diana is (was :'(), but still you know how if you multiply 2 positives it's going to be a positive? Well, ALSO if you multiply a negative and a positive, it's going to be negative (Prince Charles being the negative) so . . .
-
Charlie is a dumbass...I wouldn't be surprised if he was caught in bed with a squirrel :roll:
I know . . . And it's not like he's attractive. You wonder how he had such a hot son like William. The red head - Henry? - on the other hand . . . :roll:
Ermmm ever heard of a little someone called Princess Diana Cece!? Think about it. lol
Oh and he's called Harry.
EDIT: haha at us Hollandish chum! We wrote almost exactly the same post. lol
Welllllll, yeah - Of course I know who Princess Diana is (was :'(), but still you know how if you multiply 2 positives it's going to be a positive? Well, ALSO if you multiply a negative and a positive, it's going to be negative (Prince Charles being the negative) so . . .
That ain't the way genetics works! lol
-
I know . . . And it's not like he's attractive. You wonder how he had such a hot son like William. The red head - Henry? - on the other hand . . . :roll:
what are you talking about!? Harrys a hottie too!