gher 0 #1 December 13, 2011 There is a small but vocal group here which supports the Occupy Movement. Oddly enough, there are a great many living in Monarchies. It would seem to be horribly inappropriate for someone who believes in the Occupy movement to live in a place where a Family is considered Royalty, picking the pocket of the commoners simply to serve as figureheads. What exactly does the King of Spain do? The King of Thailand? Prince Charles? Why do they get to be king? Why does Japan have an Emperor? At least The POTUS, Senators and Reps have to be elected--these people simply hit the Pick Six in the Genetic Lottery! Would the Children of Prince Charles and Diana Spencer be so rapidly promoted (in several services) if they weren't Royalty? I'd think that eliminating Monarchies--the ultimate do-nothing parasites (unlike business execs, who provide employment opportunities for workers and dividends and profit to shareholders) would be tops on their hit list... Or at least they'd leave to a place without a King/Queen... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #2 December 13, 2011 Quote Would the Children of Prince Charles and Diana Spencer be so rapidly promoted (in several services) if they weren't Royalty? Would Chelsea Clinton's first foray into broadcast journalism be on the the national stage were she not born to it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #3 December 13, 2011 I thought, they all lived in LaLa Land! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gher 0 #4 December 14, 2011 QuoteQuote Would the Children of Prince Charles and Diana Spencer be so rapidly promoted (in several services) if they weren't Royalty? Would Chelsea Clinton's first foray into broadcast journalism be on the the national stage were she not born to it? Apples and Oranges--Broadcast Journalism is run by PRIVATE Companies, who can hire anyone they want. The MOD, a Government Agency, is supposed to take the best and brightest, not someone's kid simply because they're someone's kid. Now if Chelsea Clinton was admitted to West Point simply because of her Dad, that'd be similar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #5 December 14, 2011 They would not live there very long. Unless, of course they were part of the hypocritical elite. The Limo Liberal type. As Expats in a foreign land,they might do well, as long as the kingdom knew that their family kept them supplied with a steady cash flow. #4...Apples and Oranges--Broadcast Journalism is run by PRIVATE Companies, who can hire anyone they want. The MOD, a Government Agency, is supposed to take the best and brightest, not someone's kid simply because they're someone's kid. Now if Chelsea Clinton was admitted to West Point simply because of her Dad, that'd be similar. Excellent reply. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #6 December 14, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Would the Children of Prince Charles and Diana Spencer be so rapidly promoted (in several services) if they weren't Royalty? Would Chelsea Clinton's first foray into broadcast journalism be on the the national stage were she not born to it? Apples and Oranges--Broadcast Journalism is run by PRIVATE Companies, who can hire anyone they want. The MOD, a Government Agency, is supposed to take the best and brightest, not someone's kid simply because they're someone's kid. Now if Chelsea Clinton was admitted to West Point simply because of her Dad, that'd be similar. What a silly response. Getting a leg up due to family connections is what it is, whether it's politics, journalism, the military or what-have-you. All different stanzas of the same tune: "The it sucks to be the little guy blues". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #7 December 14, 2011 Quote (... business execs, who provide employment opportunities for workers and dividends and profit to shareholders) would be tops on their hit list... I'm not sure if I'd want The Donald to be king. My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #8 December 14, 2011 QuoteApples and Oranges--Broadcast Journalism is run by PRIVATE Companies, who can hire anyone they want. The MOD, a Government Agency, is supposed to take the best and brightest, not someone's kid simply because they're someone's kid. Now if Chelsea Clinton was admitted to West Point simply because of her Dad, that'd be similar. Keyword. You must be an idealist. You may want to join the real world. "Supposed to" and "reality" are quite different.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gher 0 #9 December 14, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Would the Children of Prince Charles and Diana Spencer be so rapidly promoted (in several services) if they weren't Royalty? Would Chelsea Clinton's first foray into broadcast journalism be on the the national stage were she not born to it? Apples and Oranges--Broadcast Journalism is run by PRIVATE Companies, who can hire anyone they want. The MOD, a Government Agency, is supposed to take the best and brightest, not someone's kid simply because they're someone's kid. Now if Chelsea Clinton was admitted to West Point simply because of her Dad, that'd be similar. What a silly response. Getting a leg up due to family connections is what it is, whether it's politics, journalism, the military or what-have-you. All different stanzas of the same tune: "The it sucks to be the little guy blues". You miss the point--A private company is not required to be a meritocracy. The Government, in theory, is supposed to be one when it comes to hiring. You completely ignored my example. Chelsea Clinton being hired by a private company--their call, not subject to oversight. The government should be required to hire the best and brightest without regard to paternity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #10 December 14, 2011 The royal family costs me a whopping 6-7 Euros a year. And our RF is very expensive, the Brits pay less then a Euro per person each year apparently. That sucks, but it isn't anywhere near the amount of money the financial crisis has cost me, and it certainly isn't a reason to emigrate. So the answer is: nope, people shouldn't emigrate because something insignificant is wrong with their country. I'm not an OWS supporter btw, but you sort of imply that anyone who doesn't support the Royal Family should move to another country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gher 0 #11 December 14, 2011 QuoteThe royal family costs me a whopping 6-7 Euros a year. And our RF is very expensive, the Brits pay less then a Euro per person each year apparently. That sucks, but it isn't anywhere near the amount of money the financial crisis has cost me, and it certainly isn't a reason to emigrate. So the answer is: nope, people shouldn't emigrate because something insignificant is wrong with their country. I'm not an OWS supporter btw, but you sort of imply that anyone who doesn't support the Royal Family should move to another country. Why should they receive anything simply because of the family they were born into? What do they provide for the millions they are paid? Why do they qualify? And Monarchies are antithetical to those who support OWS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #12 December 14, 2011 QuoteYou miss the point Do not. QuoteYou completely ignored my example. Did not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #13 December 14, 2011 QuoteAnd Monarchies are antithetical to those who support OWS. Probably, but I don't think you get my point. I also think the monarchy shouldn't exist in this day and age. But it is an insignificant flaw of my society, nothing more. Not something to emigrate over... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gher 0 #14 December 14, 2011 Quote QuoteAnd Monarchies are antithetical to those who support OWS. Probably, but I don't think you get my point. I also think the monarchy shouldn't exist in this day and age. But it is an insignificant flaw of my society, nothing more. Not something to emigrate over... But before going after Capitalists that provide jobs and earn their money, should not the Occupy Sympathizers first go after the Royals, who take hundreds of millions from their people but provide NOTHING? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #15 December 14, 2011 oh look another anonymous troller attempting to lure people into a discussion when they do not have the strength make their argument face-to-face. Or perhaps they live in fear knowing their views are incorrect and unacceptable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #16 December 14, 2011 Quote oh look another anonymous troller attempting to lure people into a discussion when they do not have the strength make their argument face-to-face. Or perhaps they live in fear knowing their views are incorrect and unacceptable. Anonymous? That *poster* surely is not new to the site .... That i**** surely has been here before dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #17 December 14, 2011 QuoteBut before going after Capitalists that provide jobs and earn their money, should not the Occupy Sympathizers first go after the Royals, who take hundreds of millions from their people but provide NOTHING? According to the website of The Royal Household they employ approximately 1,200 people, of which 450 are funded by the taxpayer. Looks like they are providing something. You do make a pretty solid argument in favour of Estate Taxes though. Why indeed should people keep their wealth if they aren't doing anything and just won the "genetic lottery"... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gher 0 #18 December 14, 2011 QuoteQuoteBut before going after Capitalists that provide jobs and earn their money, should not the Occupy Sympathizers first go after the Royals, who take hundreds of millions from their people but provide NOTHING? According to the website of The Royal Household they employ approximately 1,200 people, of which 450 are funded by the taxpayer. Looks like they are providing something. You do make a pretty solid argument in favour of Estate Taxes though. Why indeed should people keep their wealth if they aren't doing anything and just won the "genetic lottery"... The difference is that estates are given freely/voluntarily to one's progeny, whereas the Royals get Tax Money given to them (taken involuntarily from Commoners) for being part of a "Special" family. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #19 December 14, 2011 QuoteThe difference is that estates are given freely/voluntarily to one's progeny, whereas the Royals get Tax Money given to them (taken involuntarily from Commoners) for being part of a "Special" family. Bullshit. The government, elected by the taxpayers, sets the budget for the Royal Family and controls the purse strings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #20 December 14, 2011 QuoteIt would seem to be horribly inappropriate for someone who believes in the Occupy movement to live in a place where a Family is considered Royalty, No-one can help where they're born - and while it's increasingly easily for westerners to relocate to other countries many people still tend to form strong ties keeping them in roughly the same place. QuoteI'd think that eliminating Monarchies--the ultimate do-nothing parasites (unlike business execs, who provide employment opportunities for workers and dividends and profit to shareholders) would be tops on their hit list... You assume OWS supporters are not also abolitionists. Why? QuoteOr at least they'd leave to a place without a King/Queen... Surely the point of the OWS movement is to try and do something to effect change where you are, not to run away and leave the problem for everyone else. Leaving is just about the opposite of what you'd expect them to do. Clue's in the name really - "Occupy Wall Street, oh yeah, that's the bunch of guys who left New York..."Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
